Niddah 24a (כד.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Zakkai says:

up to the knee!

meaning that it is missing from the leg [the place where the lower leg joins the thigh] For a live animal whose legs were severed above the knee is a tereifa and cannot live.

Rabbi Yannai says: up to its orifices!

Only when the entire leg has been removed, and the deficiency is also visible when it is lying down, will it die.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Yehoshua:

Even when the entire leg is missing, it can live. Only when it is removed

up to the place of its navel

will it die.

The Gemara explains the basis of the dispute:

The difference between Rabbi Zakkai and Rabbi Yannai is

the point of their disagreement: Is a

tereifa capable of living?

The Master,

Rabbi Yannai,

held

a tereifa can live!

Therefore, only if the removal extends above the fetus’s orifices is it considered dead; but if it is removed only above the knee, which merely renders it a tereifa, it is considered alive.

And the Master,

Rabbi Zakkai,

held

a tereifa cannot live!

Therefore, it is sufficient that the removal extends above the knee for it to be considered dead.

The difference between Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yoḥanan is

the point of their disagreement: the ruling of

Rabbi Elazar.

Both hold that a tereifa can live, and that only an animal whose deficiency causes it to have the status of a carcass dies. They disagree as to what deficiency is required for it to have the status of a carcass.

For Rabbi Elazar said: If the thigh and its cavity are removed,

it is

a carcass

and conveys the ritual impurity of carcasses; even while it is still alive, its life is not considered life. Rabbi Yannai held in accordance with Rabbi Elazar when he said that when the entire leg is missing up to the animal’s orifices, it will certainly die. But Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees with Rabbi Elazar and maintains that it is called a carcass only when the removal extends up to the navel.

Rav Pappa said: The

The

dispute

cited thus far—how much can be removed from a living creature before it dies—applies only when the removal is from the body

below

in the direction of

above.

But

if it is severed

from above,

[from the skull] in the direction of

below,

there is no dispute, and everyone agrees that

even if any amount at all is removed

from the fetus’s skull, it is considered unable to live, and its mother is

pure!

And Rav Giddel likewise said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A woman who miscarries a fetus whose skull is sealed

[deficient]—

its mother is pure!

Since Rav Giddel did not give a measure for the deficiency, it follows that the mother is pure even for the loss of the slightest amount.

And Rav Giddel said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: A woman who miscarries something resembling a palm-tree branch,

whose body resembles a palm tree: below it is a single mass, while above, its legs and arms branch out from the shoulders—

its mother is pure!

Since it cannot live.

It was stated: With regard to a woman who miscarries a fetus whose face is somewhat crushed,

but is not completely flat:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said—

its mother is impure.

Reish Lakish said—

its mother is pure.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish:

It was taught in a beraita:

A woman who miscarries a severed hand or a severed foot,

whose finger divisions are recognizable —

its mother is impure with the impurity of childbirth!

For it is impossible for her to miscarry a hand or foot with recognizable finger divisions unless there had been a fully formed fetus. Apparently, the rest of the fetus dissolved and emerged in the form of blood, while only the foot or hand emerged intact.

And we are not concerned that perhaps it came from a fetus with a sealed body,

meaning that the hand or foot came from a fetus whose own appearance is unknown, and it is possible that it lacked a limb upon which life depends, in which case it would not render its mother impure. The beraita teaches that we need not be concerned for this possibility; rather, we rely on the fact that most fetuses are born with all their limbs intact.

And if it is so,

that when its face is somewhat crushed its mother is pure, in accordance with Reish Lakish, why was it not stated in the beraita that in this case as well we are not concerned, and rely on the majority even to assume that the fetus’s face had not been crushed?

And

let it teach: “And we are not concerned

that perhaps it came from a sealed body or from a fetus whose face was somewhat crushed”

?

Because of this objection, the Gemara retracts and presents a different version of the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish:

Rav Pappi said: With regard to a fetus whose face is somewhat crushed—

everyone agrees that its mother is impure!

A slight crushing does not render her pure.

They disagree with regard to a fetus whose face is completely flat,

which is entirely flat. Rav Pappi makes another change from the previous version, in which

and conversely it was stated —

Rabbi Yoḥanan says—

its mother is pure!

And Reish Lakish says—

its mother is impure!

The Gemara asks: What benefit is there in Rav Pappi’s version?

And let Reish Lakish raise an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who declares a woman with a fetus whose face is completely flat pure,

from this

beraita cited above, which states that a woman who miscarries a severed hand or foot is impure with the impurity of childbirth, and we are not concerned that perhaps it came from a fetus with a sealed body. If a completely flat face renders the mother pure, the beraita should likewise have said that we are not concerned that perhaps the hand or foot came from a fetus with a completely flat face. Thus, Rav Pappi did not answer the difficulty from the beraita by changing the wording of the dispute.

The Gemara answers:

Because he can distinguish between them,

meaning that according to Rav Pappi’s version, Rabbi Yoḥanan can answer:

A sealed body is identical to a fetus whose face is completely flat!

The reason for the mother’s purity when the fetus’s face is completely flat is that a completely flat face is not a face, and the fetus is therefore born lacking a head. Consequently, there is no need to repeat this case in the beraita, which has already stated the law of a fetus lacking a limb. [But according to the first version, which declared the mother pure when the fetus’s face was somewhat crushed, it is impossible to say that it is considered to lack a face, since its form is recognizable. Therefore, above the Gemara asked why the beraita did not teach this case in addition to that of a sealed body].

The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya went out to the villages

to see their fields . When they returned,

they came before their father, and he said to them—

“Did any case come before you?” They said to him—

A woman who gave birth to a fetus with

a completely flat face came before us, and we declared her impure! [They instructed her to follow the law of a woman who gives birth to a female fetus of uncertain status, who is impure for fourteen days.] This was in accordance with Rav Pappi’s statement in the name of Reish Lakish.

[They instructed her to follow the law of a woman who gives birth to a female fetus, who is impure for fourteen days.] This was in accordance with Rav Pappi’s report in the name of Reish Lakish.

He said to them

Rabbi Ḥiyya to his sons:

“Go out and declare pure what you declared impure! What did you have in mind

to be stringent,

since you were uncertain how to decide the law of a completely flat face, whether to follow Rabbi Yoḥanan or Reish Lakish, and instructed her to observe the impurity of a woman who gives birth as a stringency?

A stringency that leads to leniency, for you have given her days of purity,

since the villagers will not understand that you ruled this way merely as a stringency. They will think that her status is that of a woman who certainly gave birth to a viable fetus, in which case, after the days of impurity come thirty-three days of purity, during which she is pure even if she sees blood. If this woman sees blood during those days, they will declare her pure from the impurity of a menstruating woman because of the ruling you issued, and it will emerge that your stringency has caused her to stumble.”

It was stated: With regard to a woman who miscarries a creature with two backs and two spines—

Rav said: In the case of a woman—

it is not a fetus! In the case of an animal—

it is forbidden to eat!

Even when an ordinary animal is slaughtered and a fetus with two spines is found inside it, it is forbidden to eat, and it is not like every fetus that is permitted through the slaughter of its mother.

And Shmuel said: In the case of a woman—

it is a fetus! In the case of an animal—

it is permitted to eat,

when it is found in the womb of a slaughtered animal!

With regard to what do they disagree? They disagree concerning the statement of Rav Ḥanin bar Abba. For Rav Ḥanin bar Abba said:

“You shall not eat any of these, among those that chew their cud and have split hooves:

the shesu'a”

[Deuteronomy 14:7], and the shesu'a forbidden in this verse is

a creature with two backs and two spines!

It is called shesu'a, from the language of twinning .

Rav and Shmuel disagree in explaining this exposition:

Rav said: Such a creature

of this kind

in the world at large—

does not exist!

There is no species in the world whose natural form is to have two backs, such that we could explain that the Torah prohibited this species for consumption. Therefore, the Torah must be referring to an ordinary animal that was born with two backs. Since all animals born this way die immediately, there would be no need to prohibit them, as they are already forbidden to eat because they are carcasses . It must therefore be that

when the Merciful One taught Moses

that it is forbidden to eat,

He taught it with regard to the mother’s womb,

to teach that it is not like every fetus, which is permitted to eat through the slaughter of its mother even if it is born dead. Since it has two backs, it is forbidden to eat. For this reason, Rav declared pure a woman who miscarries a fetus with two backs: Only a fetus whose form is capable of surviving renders its mother impure.

And Shmuel said: Such a creature in the world at large

does exist, and there is a species whose members have two backs.

And when the Merciful One taught Moses

that it is forbidden to eat,

He taught it with regard to the world at large,

meaning that only this species, whose nature is to have two backs, is forbidden, and even if one of them is born with only one spine, it is forbidden. This species is among the forbidden animals. But when a kosher animal is slaughtered and a fetus with two backs is found inside it, the fetus is permitted to eat. For this reason, Shmuel declared its mother impure. Since there is a living creature that survives with two backs, the fetus is fit to render its mother impure.

However,

an ordinary animal that has two spines and is

in its mother's womb

when its mother is slaughtered

is permitted

for consumption.

Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya raised an objection to Rav: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Every

firstborn

that has two backs and two spines

may not be offered as a sacrifice , because it is

unfit for sacrificial service!

And from the fact that it disqualifies it only for a sacrifice, it follows that it is permitted for ordinary consumption.

Apparently, it lives?!

[The difficulty applies to Shmuel as well, for Shmuel too maintains that it cannot survive, and permits it for consumption only when it is found in its mother's womb, whereas here it follows that it lives and is disqualified only for a sacrifice. The reason Rav Shimi raised the difficulty specifically to Rav is that Rav Shimi was Rav's grandson and was regularly in his presence; therefore, he raised it only to him, even though the difficulty applies to Shmuel as well.]

Rav said to him

Rav Shimi, his grandson—

“You, Shimi!”

[an expression of affection—“You know how to answer me.”] The answer to your question is that when Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus said that it lives but is unfit as a sacrifice, he was not referring literally to an animal with two backs and two spines. Rather, he was referring only to one

whose spine is curved,

so that it appears to be two spines, although in truth it is one spine, merely curved. I, however, was speaking of two separate and distinct spines.

Meytivi:

It was taught in a beraita:

There are fetuses

that are born

that are forbidden

because of nevela! For they were born before their time and cannot survive. The beraita explains: When they are born at

four months

for a

small animal

[whose normal gestation is five months], and likewise at

eight months

for a

large animal

[whose normal gestation is nine months], it is a fully formed fetus.

Only when it is born

at that stage or earlier—

is it a stillborn fetus

and is forbidden

to eat it as nevela.

The beraita concludes:

“Excluded is one that has two backs and two spines,”

whose law differs from that of other fetuses!

The Gemara infers:

What does “excluded” mean? Does it not mean that it is excluded

—one that has two backs and two spines—

from the category of fetuses,

for other fetuses are forbidden only if they were born before their time, but if their mother was slaughtered and they were found in her womb, they are permitted, as derived from the verse, “an animal within an animal you may eat,” whereas those fetuses that have two backs and two spines are excluded from that category,

so that they are forbidden even in their mother's womb,

and the slaughter of their mother does not permit them? This is difficult for Shmuel, who said that if they are found in their mother's womb, they are permitted.

The Gemara answers:

Rav offers an explanation

and interprets the beraita in a manner consistent

with his position

[so that there is indeed no difficulty with Rav's ruling, but the beraita itself is difficult independently of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. The beginning of the beraita deals with fetuses born alive, implying that the conclusion, which excludes one that has two backs, also speaks of a fetus of this type that is alive; otherwise it would not belong to the category mentioned at the beginning. Yet this is difficult, since no creature with two backs exists that can live].

And Shmuel offers an explanation

that is consistent

with his position.

Rav offers an explanation consistent with his position: A four-month fetus of a small animal, and an eight-month fetus of a large animal,

is fit.

At that stage or earlier—

it is forbidden! In what context does this apply

that it is forbidden?

When the fetus emerges into the air of the world

before its time.

But in its mother's womb—

it is permitted! “Excluded is one that has two backs and two spines, for it is forbidden even in its mother's womb as well,”

in accordance with Rav's position, who prohibited it even when it was found in its mother's womb when she was slaughtered.