Niddah 23b — the Talmud in English

Rav Yirmeya of Difti said:

Precise page location

We too have likewise learned

that an animal-form fetus in a woman’s womb does not live.

For we learned with regard to the firstborn, namely, who is considered a fetus that exempts the womb, so that the one born after it is not a firstborn:

One who miscarries something resembling a wild animal, a domesticated animal, or a bird

is a proper fetus,

and the one born after it is entirely not a firstborn [as will be explained shortly]

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: Until there is in it some form of a human being

it exempts the womb; and as long as there is no human form in the first fetus, if another fetus is born after it, the second fetus is liable for the redemption of the firstborn, because the first fetus is not considered a fetus that exempts the womb.

And

both according to Rabbi Meir and according to the Sages,

one who miscarries a sandal,

a fetus whose facial form is not discernible,

or a placenta,

[the gestational sac in which the fetus is found,] for although we did not see the fetus, it certainly existed, since there is no placenta without a fetus,

or an shafir

[the fetus’s skin before sinews and bones were formed within it]

that is formed

in which the formation of the limbs is already partially discernible,

and one that emerges cut up—

the one who follows it,

who was born after one of these miscarriages, is

a firstborn for inheritance,

and receives a double portion in his father’s inheritance. Since the first fetus was not fit to live, it does not prevent the one born after it from being considered a firstborn with regard to the law of inheritance.

But—

and he is not a firstborn for the priest!

For there is no obligation to redeem from the priest the one born after these miscarriages, because the first fetus is considered the firstborn with regard to the laws of the redemption of the firstborn, as even a stillborn is called one that “opens the womb.” [And the fetus itself is exempt from redemption because it is not alive.]

And the Gemara explains what the proof is from the beraita that a fetus in the form of an animal does not live:

And if it enters your mind that

a fetus that is like a domesticated animal or a wild animal

lives,

then that which we learned in the beraita, that

the one who follows it

is

a firstborn for inheritance—

is it so?

Is this law correct? But the first fetus is alive, and it is the firstborn even with regard to inheritance, and not the one born after it?! We reject this:

Rava said: Actually

it is possible to say

that it lives,

and nevertheless the one who follows it is the firstborn for inheritance, and not that fetus.

And there it is different,

with regard to the laws of inheritance, for what determines the law of the firstborn is not only whether he is alive or dead,

as the verse says, “For he is

the

first of his strength—he has the right of the firstborn.” And we expound:

the one

whose heart

of his father

aches over him

and he grieves when he dies—he is a firstborn for inheritance. And since even a living fetus over whose death his father does not grieve is not a firstborn,

there has gone out

the fetus

this

that resembles an animal,

over whom the heart

of

his father does not ache

when he dies; and therefore he is not a firstborn for inheritance, but rather the one born after him.

Rav Adda bar Ahava asked Abaye:

According to Rabbi Meir, who says, “An animal in a woman’s womb—

is a proper fetus,”

and a fetus whose form is the form of an animal is considered, by the law of a human being, since it was born from a human being,

a human being in an animal’s womb—

what is the law?

If it happened that a human form was found in the womb of an animal, is its status that of a human being, since its form is that of a human being, or do we say that the identity of the fetus is determined according to its relation to its mother who gives birth to it, and it is therefore an animal?

And the question is specifically according to the view of Rabbi Meir, who gives a woman who miscarries the form of an animal the status of a woman who gives birth to a human being. This implies from his words that the identity of the fetus is determined according to its mother; and if so, it would be possible to say that also a human form found in the womb of an animal has its status determined according to its mother, and it is an animal and not a human being. But according to the Sages there is no doubt that the fetus’s intrinsic form determines its identity, as a human being or as an animal, and not its relation to its mother.

And the Gemara asks:

What practical difference is there

whether it is a human being or an animal?

And it answers:

To permit it for eating,

and although it is impossible to slaughter it, it will not be prohibited with the prohibition of an unslaughtered carcass if its animal mother is slaughtered and a human form is found in her womb. For if its status is that of an animal, it is permitted through the slaughtering of its mother, as in the law of a “fetus recovered from a slaughtered animal,” which is permitted without slaughtering it; but if its status is that of a human being, it is forbidden to eat it.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

And let us resolve it

that it is forbidden to eat it

from that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said. For Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who slaughters an animal and finds in it the form of a dove—

it is forbidden

the dove

for eating!

And it is proven that the slaughtering of the mother is effective only for a fetus resembling its mother, and not for a fetus possessing a different form.?!

And it answers:

Can this be compared?!

There,

the dove is not permitted through the slaughtering of its animal mother, because

there are neither hooves, nor is there a hoof!

For the permission of the fetus through the slaughtering of its mother is learned in tractate Chullin [69a] from the verse, “And every animal that has a hoof, and has its hoof split into two cloven hoofs, among the animals, that you may eat.” And from the superfluous word “among the animals” they expound: “An animal within an animal—you may eat,” that is, an animal fetus found within an animal is permitted to be eaten through the slaughtering of its mother. But this is on condition that the fetus also has two hooves, whose hoof is split in two, or at least that it has a hoof, even if it is not split, in accordance with the wording of the verse, that the animal found within the animal must be one that has a hoof. But a dove, which has no hoof at all, is not included in this verse, and it cannot be permitted through the slaughtering of its animal mother.

But

here,

when a human form was found in an animal—

granted that “hooves” it does not have,

for the human’s hoof is not split and he has no “hooves,”

a hoof

one

at least it does have

in a human being, and it is possible to include it in the teaching from the verse that every animal found within an animal, if it “has a hoof,” is permitted through the mother’s slaughtering. And the identity of that fetus must be examined: Is it a human being, according to its form, and forbidden for eating, or an animal according to its affiliation, and permitted? And this question was not resolved, and the matter remains in doubt.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the Sages say—

any [offspring] that does not have

some human form is not a fetus. And from the extended wording used by the Sages, “any [offspring] that does not have human form,” rather than saying briefly, “it is not a fetus,” it is precisely indicated that there is an additional dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Meir concerning a fetus part of whose form is like a human being and part of whose form is like an animal.

And the Gemara explains this dispute.

Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: Everyone agrees

that if a woman miscarried a fetus whose:

body is that of a goat and whose face is human—

it is

a human being!

And even according to the Sages, the mother is impure with the impurity of childbirth.

Its body is human and its face is that of a kid—

it is

“nothing at all”!

For it is neither a human being nor an animal, and it does not render impure through childbirth even according to Rabbi Meir!

The Sages and Rabbi Meir did not dispute

except concerning one whose

face is human, and who was created with one eye like an animal,

when one of his eyes resembles the eye of an animal and the other eye resembles a human eye,

for Rabbi Meir says:

Since there is on his face a portion of

human form,

he is considered a fetus and renders impure through childbirth.

And the Sages say:

until there is in it

the entire form of a human being,

but if only part of it resembles an animal, and it lacks the complete form of a human being, its mother is not rendered impure through childbirth.

They said to Rav Yirmeya bar Abba—

but was it not taught oppositely

that

Rabbi Meir

is the one who

says, “the entire form,”

and since “the entire form” was stated according to the lenient position of Rabbi Meir, its meaning is that if a fetus born to a woman has the face of a goat, but has any feature of the form of a human being—for example, it resembles a human being in one eye—it is rendered impure through childbirth. And “the entire form” means any part of the form, and not the entire form.

And the Sages say, “of the form,”

and they required that half of its form be human. It follows that everyone agrees that it is not necessary for its entire face to have the appearance of a human being?!

He said to them

Rav Yirmeya:

If it was taught, it was taught!

I heard from Rav what I said, but since you have a Mishna in your hands, follow it!

Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

A woman who miscarries a fetus is not rendered impure through childbirth unless its face resembles the face of a human being in all the parts of the face, except for the ears:

the forehead, the eyebrows, the eyes, the jaws, and the beard ridges

the chin,

until they are all together,

only then is its mother rendered impure through childbirth!

Rava said

in the name of

Hasa: the forehead, the eyebrow, the eye, the jaw, and the beard ridges—

until they are all together!

There is no need for both sides of the face to resemble a human being; it is sufficient that one side of the face do so, but on that side all the parts of the face must resemble those of a human being [and according to Hasa as well—apart from the ears!].

And the Gemara explains:

And they do not disagree

Rav Yirmeya and Hasa; both spoke according to the position of the Sages, but they disagreed as to what the position of the Sages is, as in the dispute between Rav Yirmeya and the beraita.

This one,

Rav Yirmeya, who said that even if it resembles a human being in only one eye the Rabbis deem it pure—

according to the one who says

that according to the Rabbis

the entire form

of the face must be like that of a human being, and in accordance with Rav Yirmeya’s teaching in the name of Rav. [And Rav Yirmeya did not retract his difficulty from the beraita.]

This one,

Hasa, who said that according to the Rabbis, even if it resembles a human being on only one side of the face, it is a fetus—

according to the one who says “of the form,”

and as we learned in the beraita from which we raised the difficulty against Rav Yirmeya in the name of Rav.

The beraita raises an objection: “The form of the face that they said,”

the Sages, that the fetus must resemble a human being in the form of its face—

even one face from the faces, except for the ear!

And the Gemara explains: What, is it not that the intention of the beraita is

to say that even one [feature] is sufficient!

That one limb of the face that resembles a human being is sufficient—for example, an eye or a jaw [but not an ear]—in order to be considered a human fetus; and this is difficult for Rava in the name of Hasa, who said that at least one side of the face must resemble a human being in all its features?! [The

Gemara thought that the beraita explains the position of those who require “the form of a human being.” Therefore, there is no difficulty for Rav Yirmeya, who holds that Rabbi Meir is the one who holds “of the form”: since Rabbi Meir is lenient, it can be said that one limb resembling a human being is sufficient, as stated in the beraita.

But for Rava in the name of Hasa, who holds that the stringent Sages are the ones who held “of the form,” it necessarily follows that only when half the form is human is it considered to contain the form of a human being; and the beraita, which explained that one limb is sufficient for it to be considered to have “the form of a human being,” is difficult for him] .

And the Gemara answers:

Abaye said:

The intention of the beraita is different, and the opposite:

When that [teaching] was taught

that “the form of the face” that they said means even one face from the faces—

it was taught to be disqualifying,

so that even one limb like that of an animal disqualifies, and only when all the limbs of the face are like those of a human being is she rendered impure! And the beraita holds

according to the one who says “the entire form,”

and according to Rav Yirmeya’s position concerning the Sages, that “the entire form” means the entire form of the face, and even one limb like that of an animal prevents it from being considered a human fetus .

Alternatively, say:

The beraita indeed

holds according to the one who says “of the form,”

and nevertheless there is no difficulty for Hasa.

And what does the beraita mean by

“even one face”

“one”

that it stated?

One by one

of each limb: with paired limbs, it is not necessary that both resemble those of a human being; it is sufficient that one of them does so. But the resemblance must be composed of all the individual features—the eye, the jaw, the eyebrows, and the like. This is the position of Hasa concerning the Rabbis, who required resemblance in half the face.

Rava said:

A woman who gives birth to a fetus that

was created with one eye and one thigh

and whose other eye or thigh is missing—if the eye or thigh was created in its proper place,

on the side

as it is in other human beings,

its mother is rendered impure

through childbirth, despite the missing second eye or thigh. But if the eye or thigh was created

in the middle

of the body—

its mother is pure,

since its form is not the form of a human being.

Rava said:

A fetus that was born when

its esophagus was perforated

although it is a tereifa,

its mother is rendered impure—

for Rava held that a tereifa can live. But if

its esophagus was sealed

closed—

its mother is pure,

for any fetus that has a defect that causes it to be unable to live does not render its mother impure through childbirth.

The Sages taught: One who miscarries a body that is sealed lacking —

its mother is not rendered impure through childbirth!

And what is a body that is sealed? Rabbi says: [A0138]]such that if it were removed from a living person, he would die,

And what is a sealed body? Rabbi says: One whose removal from a living person would cause him to die,

if limbs are missing from the fetus, such that if they were removed from a living person he would die, its mother is not rendered impure through childbirth. For the form of a fetus incapable of living does not render her impure.

And the Gemara explains:

And how much can be removed from a living person, and he would die?