נדה כד

נדה כד

עַד הָאַרְכּוּבָּה. רַבִּי יַנַּאי אוֹמֵר: עַד לִנְקָבָיו, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: עַד מְקוֹם טַבּוּרוֹ.

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

בֵּין רַבִּי זַכַּאי לְרַבִּי יַנַּאי אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ ״טְרֵפָה חַיָּה״, מָר סָבַר ״טְרֵפָה חַיָּה״, וּמָר סָבַר ״טְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה״.

The Gemara explains the dispute between the amora’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.

בֵּין רַבִּי יַנַּאי לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: (ניטל) [נִיטְּלָה] יָרֵךְ וְחָלָל שֶׁלָּהּ — נְבֵלָה.

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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַחְלוֹקֶת מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה, אֲבָל מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה אֲפִילּוּ כֹּל דְּהוּ — טְהוֹרָה. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמַּפֶּלֶת אֶת שֶׁגּוּלְגׇּלְתּוֹ אֲטוּמָה — אִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה.

Rav Pappa says: The dispute between the amora’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 Yoḥanan says: In the case of a woman who discharges a fetus whose skull is sealed, i.e., deficient, its mother is pure.

וְאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין אַפָּקוּתָא דְּדִיקְלָא — אִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה.

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

אִיתְּמַר: הַמַּפֶּלֶת מִי שֶׁפָּנָיו מוּסְמָסִים, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה.

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

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַמַּפֶּלֶת יָד חֲתוּכָה וְרֶגֶל חֲתוּכָה — אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה, וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא מִגּוּף אָטוּם בָּאתָה. וְאִם אִיתָא, לִיתְנֵי: שֶׁמָּא מִגּוּף אָטוּם אוֹ מִמִּי שֶׁפָּנָיו מוּסְמָסִין!

Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

אָמַר רַב פַּפֵּי: בְּפָנָיו מוּסְמָסִין — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּטְמֵאָה, כִּי פְּלִיגִי — בְּפָנָיו טוּחוֹת, וְאִיפְּכָא אִיתְּמַר: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה.

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

וְלוֹתְבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵהָא! מִשּׁוּם דְּשַׁנִּי לֵיהּ: הַיְינוּ גּוּף אָטוּם, הַיְינוּ מִי שֶׁפָּנָיו טוּחוֹת.

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

בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא נְפוּק לְקִרְיָיתָא, אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דַּאֲבוּהוֹן, אָמַר לָהֶם: כְּלוּם בָּא מַעֲשֶׂה לְיֶדְכֶם? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: פָּנִים טוּחוֹת בָּא לְיָדֵינוּ, וְטִימֵּאנוּהָ.

The Gemara relates: The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya went out to the villages to inspect their father’s fields. When they came back to their father, he said to them: Wasn’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.

אָמַר לָהֶם: צְאוּ וְטַהֲרוּ מָה שֶׁטִּמֵּאתֶם. מַאי דַּעְתַּיְיכוּ, לְחוּמְרָא? חוּמְרָא דְּאָתְיָא לִידֵי קוּלָּא הִיא, דְּקָיָהֲבִיתוּ לַהּ יְמֵי טוֹהַר.

Rabbi Ḥiyya 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.

אִיתְּמַר: הַמַּפֶּלֶת בְּרִיָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּים וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת, אָמַר רַב: בְּאִשָּׁה — אֵינוֹ וָלָד, בִּבְהֵמָה — אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּאִשָּׁה — וָלָד, בִּבְהֵמָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה.

§ 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.

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בִּדְרַב חָנִין בַּר אַבָּא, דְּאָמַר רַב חָנִין בַּר אַבָּא: ״הַשְּׁסוּעָה״ — בְּרִיָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rav and Shmuel disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree concerning the statement of Rav Ḥanin bar Abba, as Rav Ḥanin bar Abba said: The verse states: “Nevertheless these you shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only have the hoof cloven [umimafrisei haparsa hashesua]: The camel, and the hare, and the rock badger” (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.

רַב אָמַר: בְּרִיָּה בְּעָלְמָא לֵיתַהּ, וְכִי אַגְמְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה — בִּמְעֵי אִמָּהּ אַגְמְרֵיהּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּרֵיהּ בְּעָלְמָא אִיתַאּ, וְכִי אַגְמְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה — בְּעָלְמָא אַגְמְרֵיהּ, אֲבָל בִּמְעֵי אִמָּהּ — שָׁרְיָא.

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.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַב: רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר, כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת פָּסוּל לַעֲבוֹדָה, אַלְמָא דְּחָיֵי, וְקַשְׁיָא לְרַב! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁימִי אַתְּ! שֶׁשִּׁדְרָתוֹ עֲקוּמָּה.

Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya raised an objection to Rav from a baraita: Rabbi Ḥanina 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 Ḥanina 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.

מֵיתִיבִי: יֵשׁ בְּעוּבָּרִין שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין — בֶּן אַרְבָּעָה לְדַקָּה, בֶּן שְׁמֹנָה לְגַסָּה, הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְמַטָּה אָסוּר. יָצָא מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת.

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.

מַאי ״יָצָא״? לָאו יָצָא מִכְּלַל עוּבָּרִין, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְעֵי אִמָּן אֲסוּרִין?

The Gemara asks: What does the baraita mean when it states that an animal with two backs and two spines is excluded? Does it not mean that it is excluded from the category of those fetuses, which are permitted for consumption if found inside their mother’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.

רַב מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ. רַב מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: בֶּן אַרְבָּעָה לְדַקָּה, בֶּן שְׁמוֹנֶה לְגַסָּה, הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְמַטָּה — אָסוּר.

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.

בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? כְּשֶׁיָּצָא לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם, אֲבָל בִּמְעֵי אִמּוֹ — שְׁרֵי. יָצָא מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְעֵי אִמּוֹ נָמֵי אָסוּר.

In what case is this statement said? In a case where the animal emerged into the airspace of the world; but if it was found in its mother’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.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: בֶּן אַרְבָּעָה לְדַקָּה, בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה לְגַסָּה — הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְמַטָּה אָסוּר. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּשֶׁלֹּא כָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו, אֲבָל כָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו — מוּתָּר. יָצָא מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּכָלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו — אִם יָצָא לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם אָסוּר, בִּמְעֵי אִמּוֹ שְׁרֵי.

And Shmuel explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning, in the following manner: If an animal fetus is born in the fourth month of pregnancy in the case of small domesticated animals, or it is born in the eighth month of pregnancy in the case of large livestock, or if it was born from this stage of the pregnancy and earlier, the animal is forbidden. In what case is this statement said? In a case when the fetus’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.

תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב: הַמַּפֶּלֶת בְּרִיַּית גּוּף שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָתוּךְ, וּבְרִיַּית רֹאשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ חָתוּךְ, יָכוֹל תְּהֵא אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר וְגוֹ׳ וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל וְגוֹ׳״ —

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: “If a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure seven days; as in the days of the menstruation of her sickness she shall be impure. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:2–3).

מִי שֶׁרָאוּי לִבְרִית שְׁמֹנָה, יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִבְרִית שְׁמֹנָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב וְסַיֵּים בַּהּ הָכִי: וְשֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת.

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.

רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא סָבַר לְמֶעְבַּד עוֹבָדָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא: מַאי דַּעְתָּיךְ לְחוּמְרָא? חוּמְרָא דְּאָתֵי לִידֵי קוּלָּא הוּא, דְּקָיָהֲבַתְּ לַהּ דְּמֵי טוֹהַר. עֲבֵיד מִיהָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַב, דְּקַיְימָא לַן הִלְכְתָא כְּרַב בְּאִיסּוּרֵי, בֵּין לְקוּלָּא בֵּין לְחוּמְרָא.

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.

אָמַר רָבָא: הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ, אִשָּׁה יוֹלֶדֶת לְתִשְׁעָה וְיוֹלֶדֶת לְשִׁבְעָה, בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה יוֹלֶדֶת לְתִשְׁעָה — יוֹלֶדֶת לְשִׁבְעָה אוֹ לֹא יָלְדָה?

§ 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?

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: תָּא שְׁמַע, הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְמַטָּה אָסוּר. מַאי לָאו אַגַּסָּה? לָא, אַדַּקָּה.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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.

הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא אַגַּסָּה — אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּבְאִשָּׁה חָיֵי, בִּבְהֵמָה נָמֵי חָיֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא חָיֵי.

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.

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אַדַּקָּה אִיתְּמַר, פְּשִׁיטָא! בַּת תְּלָתָא יַרְחֵי מִי קָא חָיֵי?!

But if you say that the ruling in the baraita, that if an animal discharged a fetus before the period of gestation was completed then the fetus is prohibited, was stated with regard to small domesticated animals, isn’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?

אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אֲמִינָא: כֹּל בְּצִיר תְּרֵי יַרְחֵי חָיֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמַּפֶּלֶת דְּמוּת לִילִית, אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה, וָלָד הוּא אֶלָּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כְּנָפַיִם. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, מַעֲשֶׂה בְּסִימוֹנְיָא בְּאַחַת שֶׁהִפִּילָה דְּמוּת לִילִית, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְאָמְרוּ: וָלָד הוּא אֶלָּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ כְּנָפַיִם.

§ 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.

הַמַּפֶּלֶת דְּמוּת נָחָשׁ, הוֹרָה חֲנִינָא בֶּן אָחִיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה. הָלַךְ רַבִּי יוֹסֵף וְסִפֵּר דְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, שָׁלַח לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הַנְהֵג בֶּן אָחִיךָ וָבֹא.

There was a case of a woman who discharged an item that had the form of a snake. Ḥanina, the son of Rabbi Yehoshua’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.

בַּהֲלִיכָתָן, יָצְתָה כַּלַּת (רַבִּי) חֲנִינָא לִקְרָאתוֹ, אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין נָחָשׁ מַהוּ? אָמַר לָהּ: אִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה. אָמְרָה לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא מִשִּׁמְךָ אָמְרָה לִי חֲמוֹתִי אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה? וְאָמַר לָהּ: מֵאֵיזֶה טַעַם? הוֹאִיל וְגַלְגַּל עֵינוֹ עָגוֹל כְּשֶׁל אָדָם. מִתּוֹךְ דְּבָרֶיהָ נִזְכַּר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שָׁלַח לוֹ לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: מִפִּי הוֹרָה חֲנִינָא.

While they were going to Rabban Gamliel, Ḥanina’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: Ḥanina issued the ruling based on my own statement.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן דְּאָמַר מִילְּתָא — לֵימָא בַּהּ טַעְמָא, דְּכִי מַדְכְּרוּ לֵיהּ — מִדְּכַר.

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.

מַתְנִי’ הַמַּפֶּלֶת שָׁפִיר מָלֵא מַיִם, מָלֵא דָּם, מָלֵא גְּנִינִים — אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְוָלָד. וְאִם הָיָה מְרוּקָּם — תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה. הַמַּפֶּלֶת סַנְדָּל אוֹ שִׁלְיָא — תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה.

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.

גְּמָ’ בִּשְׁלָמָא דָּם וּמַיִם — לֹא כְּלוּם הִיא, אֶלָּא גְּנִינִים — נֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא וָלָד הֲוָה וְנִימּוֹחַ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כַּמָּה יַיִן חַי שָׁתַת אִמּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה שֶׁנִּמּוֹחַ עוּבָּרָהּ בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ?

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.

רָבָא אָמַר: ״מָלֵא״ תְּנַן, וְאִם אִיתָא דְּאִתְּמוֹחֵי אִתְּמַח — מִחְסָר [הֲוָה] חָסַר. רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר: ״גְּוָונִים״ תְּנַן, וְאִם אִיתָא דְּאִתְּמוֹחֵי אִתְּמַח — כּוּלֵּהּ בְּחַד גַּוְונָא הָוֵי קָאֵי.

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.

תַּנְיָא, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: קוֹבֵר מֵתִים הָיִיתִי, וְהָיִיתִי מִסְתַּכֵּל בַּעֲצָמוֹת שֶׁל מֵתִים. הַשּׁוֹתֶה יַיִן חַי — עַצְמוֹתָיו שְׂרוּפִין, מָזוּג — עַצְמוֹתָיו סְכוּיִין, כָּרָאוּי — עַצְמוֹתָיו מְשׁוּחִין. וְכׇל מִי שֶׁשְּׁתִיָּיתוֹ מְרוּבָּה מַאֲכִילָתוֹ — עַצְמוֹתָיו שְׂרוּפִין, אֲכִילָתוֹ מְרוּבָּה מִשְּׁתִיָּיתוֹ — עַצְמוֹתָיו סְכוּיִין, כָּרָאוּי — עַצְמוֹתָיו מְשׁוּחִין.

With regard to the effect of drinking wine on a person’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.

תַּנְיָא, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קוֹבֵר מֵתִים הָיִיתִי. פַּעַם אַחַת רַצְתִּי אַחַר צְבִי, וְנִכְנַסְתִּי בְּקוּלִית שֶׁל מֵת, וְרַצְתִּי אַחֲרָיו שָׁלֹשׁ פַּרְסָאוֹת, וּצְבִי לֹא הִגַּעְתִּי, וְקוּלִית לֹא כָּלְתָה. כְּשֶׁחָזַרְתִּי לַאֲחוֹרַי, אָמְרוּ לִי: שֶׁל עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן הָיְתָה.

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

תַּנְיָא, אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: קוֹבֵר מֵתִים הָיִיתִי. פַּעַם אַחַת נִפְתְּחָה מְעָרָה תַּחְתַּי, וְעָמַדְתִּי בְּגַלְגַּל עֵינוֹ שֶׁל מֵת עַד חוֹטְמִי. כְּשֶׁחָזַרְתִּי לַאֲחוֹרַי, אָמְרוּ: עַיִן שֶׁל אַבְשָׁלוֹם הָיְתָה.

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.

וְשֶׁמָּא תֹּאמַר: אַבָּא שָׁאוּל נַנָּס הֲוָה — אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אָרוֹךְ בְּדוֹרוֹ הֲוָה וְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן מַגִּיעַ לִכְתֵפוֹ, וְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אָרוֹךְ בְּדוֹרוֹ הֲוָה וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מַגִּיעַ לִכְתֵפוֹ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אָרוֹךְ בְּדוֹרוֹ הֲוָה וְרַבִּי מַגִּיעַ לִכְתֵפוֹ, רַבִּי אָרוֹךְ בְּדוֹרוֹ הֲוָה

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.

וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא מַגִּיעַ לִכְתֵפוֹ, וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא אָרוֹךְ בְּדוֹרוֹ הֲוָה וְרַב מַגִּיעַ לִכְתֵפוֹ, רַב אָרוֹךְ בְּדוֹרוֹ הֲוָה וְרַב יְהוּדָה מַגִּיעַ לִכְתֵפוֹ, וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָרוֹךְ בְּדוֹרוֹ הֲוָה וְאַדָּא דַּיָּילָא מַגִּיעַ לִכְתֵפוֹ,

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