Niddah 24a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Zakkai says:

exact page location")

up to the knee-joint!

that is missing from the leg [the place where the shin joins the thigh]] for a living animal whose legs were cut off above the knee-joint is a tereifa and does not live.

Rabbi Yannai says: to its orifices!

Only when the entire leg is removed, and the deficiency is also visible when it lies down, does it die.

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

even when the entire leg is missing, it lives. And only when it is removed

up to the place of its navel

does it die.

And the Gemara explains the reasons for the disagreements:

between Rabbi Zakkai and Rabbi Yannai, there is a difference between them,

the point of their disagreement is: whether

a tereifa lives?

The master,

Rabbi Yannai,

holds—

a tereifa lives!

Therefore, only if what is above the orifices of the fetus is removed is it considered dead; but if only what is above the knee-joint is removed—which makes it merely a tereifa—it is considered alive.

And the master,

Rabbi Zakkai,

holds—

a tereifa does not live!

Therefore, it is sufficient that what is above the knee-joint be removed for it to be considered dead.

between Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yohanan, there is a difference between them,

the point of their disagreement is: the law of

Rabbi Elazar.

For both of them hold that a tereifa lives, and only an animal whose deficiency causes it to become impure like a carcass is dead. And they disagree as to what deficiency is required for it to become impure like a carcass.

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

it is

a carcass

and it conveys the impurity of carcasses, and even while it is still alive, its life is not called life. And Rabbi Yannai held in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, saying that when the entire place of the leg up to its orifices is missing, it will certainly die. But Rabbi Yohanan disagrees with Rabbi Elazar and holds that only when it is removed up to the navel is it called a carcass.

Rav Pappa said:

the

disagreement

that was brought until now—how much must be removed from a living creature for it to die—applies only when it is removed from the body

from below

in the direction of

above.

But

if it is cut

from above, [

from the skull ] , in the direction of

below,

there is no disagreement at all, and everyone agrees that

even if any amount is removed

from the skull of the fetus, it is considered as one who cannot live, and its mother is

pure!

And likewise Rav Giddel said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: a woman who miscarries one whose skull is sealed [

missing ]—

his mother is pure!

And from the fact that Rav Giddel did not give a measure for the deficiency, it follows that even with a deficiency of anything whatsoever she is pure.

And Rav Giddel said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: a woman who miscarries something resembling an afakta de-dikla,

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

his mother is pure!

since it cannot live.

It was stated: concerning a woman who miscarries one whose face is musmasim,

slightly crushed, but not completely flattened,

Rabbi Yohanan said—

his mother is impure.

Reish Lakish said—

his mother is pure.

Rabbi Yohanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish:

it was taught:

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

in which the divisions of the fingers are recognizable —

his mother is impure with the impurity of childbirth!

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

and we are not concerned that perhaps it came from a sealed body

the hand or foot, for we do not know what the fetus itself looked like, and it is possible that it was missing a limb upon which life depends, which does not render its mother impure. And the beraita teaches that we need not be concerned; rather, we rely on the fact that most fetuses are born with their limbs complete.

And if it is so

that also when his face is musmasim his mother is pure, in accordance with Reish Lakish, why was it not stated in the beraita that also in this case we are not concerned, and we rely on the majority even in order to attribute the matter to the fact that there had not been crushing of his face?

And

let it teach “

and we are not concerned

that perhaps it came from a sealed body or from one whose face is musmasin?”

And because of the difficulty, the Gemara retracts and brings another version of the disagreement between Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish:

Rav Pappi said: when his face is musmasin—

everyone agrees that she is impure!

And slight crushing does not make her pure.

When do they disagree? When his face is flattened,

which means completely flattened. And Rav Pappi makes an additional change from the previous wording, that

and the opposite was stated —

Rabbi Yohanan says—

his mother is pure!

And Reish Lakish says—

his mother is impure!

And the Gemara asks: what benefit is there in Rav Pappi’s version,

and let Reish Lakish raise an objection to Rabbi Yohanan,

who declares pure one whose face is flattened,

from this

beraita to which we objected above, that a woman who miscarries a severed hand or foot, her mother is impure with the impurity of childbirth, and we are not concerned that it perhaps came from a sealed body. And if, when his face is flattened, she is pure, the beraita should also have said that we are not concerned that perhaps his face was flattened. And it did not answer the difficulty from the beraita through the changes that Rav Pappi made in the wording of the disagreement.

And it answers:

because he can distinguish it,

for according to Rav Pappi’s version Rabbi Yohanan can answer—

this is a sealed body; this is one whose face is flattened!

For the reason for purity when his face is flattened is that a flattened face is not a face, and he is therefore born with his head missing. Consequently, it is unnecessary to repeat and teach this in the beraita, since it has already stated the law of one lacking a limb. [But according to the first version, which declared pure one whose face is musmasin, it is impossible to say that he is considered to lack a face, since his form is recognizable. Therefore, we asked above: why did the beraita not teach these cases in addition to a sealed body?]

The sons of Rabbi Chiyya went out to the villages

to the villages to see their fields , when they returned

they came before their father, who said to them—

did any incident come before you? They said to him—

a woman who gave birth to a fetus with

a flattened face came before us, and we declared her impure! [

for they instructed her to conduct herself according to the law of a woman who gives birth to a female whose status is uncertain, who is impure for two weeks ]. And this accords with Rav Pappi’s version in the name of Reish Lakish.

He said to them

Rabbi Chiyya to his sons:

Go out and declare pure what you declared impure! What was your thinking—

for stringency

that you were uncertain how to decide the law of a flattened face, whether in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan or Reish Lakish, and you instructed her to observe the impurity of a woman who gives birth as a stringency—

it is a stringency that leads to leniency, for you have given her days of purity

so that the people of the villages will not understand that you ruled this way only as a stringency, and will think that her law is that of a woman who gave birth to a definite fetus, for after the days of impurity come thirty-three days of purity, during which she is pure even if she sees blood. And if this woman sees blood during these days, they will declare her pure from the impurity of menstruation because of the ruling that you issued, and it will emerge that through your stringency you have brought her to stumbling.

It was stated: concerning a woman who miscarries a creature that has 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!

And even when an ordinary animal was slaughtered and a fetus having two spines was found inside it, it is forbidden to eat, and it is not like every fetus that becomes 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? With regard to the statement of Rav Chanin bar Abba. For Rav Chanin bar Abba said:

it is stated: “This you shall not eat, among those that bring up the cud and among those that part the hoof,

the shesua” [

Deuteronomy 14:7 ], and the “shesua” that is forbidden in this verse is

a creature that has two backs and two spines!

And it is called shesua, from the language of a twin.

And Rav and Shmuel disagree in explaining this exposition:

Rav said: a creature

such as this

in general—

does not exist!

For there is no species in the world whose form of creation is with two backs, such that we could explain that the Torah prohibited this species for eating. Therefore, necessarily, the Torah’s intention is to prohibit an ordinary animal that was born with two backs. And since all animals born in this manner die immediately, there is no need to prohibit them, for they are already forbidden to eat because they are carcasses . Necessarily,

when the Merciful One taught it to Moses

that it is forbidden to eat—

He taught it with regard to the womb of its mother

to teach that it is not like every fetus that 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. And for this reason Rav declared pure a woman who miscarries a fetus with two backs, for only a fetus whose form is fit to survive renders its mother impure.

And Shmuel said: a creature in general

there is a species in the world whose members have two backs—

it does exist! And when the Merciful One taught it to Moses

that it is forbidden to eat,

He taught it with regard to the general case,

and only this species, whose nature is to have two backs, is forbidden; even if one of them is born with a single spine, it is forbidden. For this species is among the forbidden animals. But a kosher animal that was slaughtered and in which a fetus with two backs was found is permitted to eat. And for this reason Shmuel declared its mother impure: since there is a living creature in the world that endures with two backs, the fetus is fit to cause impurity to its mother.

But

an ordinary animal that has two spinal columns and is

in its mother’s womb

at the time that its mother is slaughtered,

is permitted

for eating.

Rav Shimi bar Hiyya raised an objection to Rav: Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: Every

firstborn

that has two backs and two spinal columns

is not brought as an offering , because it is

unfit for sacrificial service!

And from the fact that he disqualified it only for an offering, it follows that it is permitted to an ordinary person;

thus, does it live?!

The difficulty applies also to Shmuel, for Shmuel too holds that it cannot live, and permitted it for eating only when it is in its mother’s womb, whereas here it follows that it does live and is disqualified only for an offering. And the reason Rav Shimi raised the difficulty specifically to Rav is that Rav Shimi was Rav’s grandson and was accustomed to being with him; therefore, he raised the difficulty only to him, even though the difficulty is also difficult for Shmuel

. He said to him

Rav to Rav Shimi, his grandson—

Shimi, you!

[as an expression of affection—you know how to answer me]. And the answer to your question is that when Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus said that it lives but is disqualified for an offering, he was not speaking of literally two backs and two spinal columns. Rather—

that its spinal column is crooked,

so that it appears as two spinal columns, but in truth it is one, only that it is crooked. Whereas I spoke of two divided and separate spinal columns.

Meitivi:

it was taught:

There are fetuses

that are born

which are forbidden

because of carrion! For they were born before their time and cannot live. And the beraita explains: when they are born

four months old

for a

small

[animal, whose way is to give birth at five months], and likewise

eight months old

for a

large

[animal, whose way is to give birth at nine months], it is a complete fetus.

And only when it is born

at that point or below—

it is a stillborn,

and is forbidden

to eat it as carrion.

And the beraita concludes:

Excluded is one who has two backs and two spinal columns

and its law differs from that of the other fetuses!

And the Gemara infers:

What is “excluded”? Is it not, “excluded”

is one who has two backs and two spinal columns

from the category of fetuses,

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

for they are forbidden even in their mother’s womb,

and the slaughter of the mother is not effective for them; and this is difficult for Shmuel, who said that if they are found in their mother’s womb, they are permitted?

The Gemara answers:

Rav explains

and interprets the beraita in a manner corresponding

to his view

[for indeed there is no difficulty against Rav’s ruling, but the beraita itself is difficult, unrelated to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. For the beginning of the beraita deals with fetuses born alive, and it follows that the final clause, which excluded one who has two backs, also speaks when this fetus is alive; for otherwise it does not belong to the category mentioned in the first clause. And it is difficult, since in reality there is no creature with two backs that lives].

And Shmuel explains

with another answer, one that corresponds

to his view.

Rav explains according to his view: Four months for a small animal, eight months for a large animal,

it is fit.

At that point or below—

it is forbidden! In what case is this said

that it is forbidden?

When the fetus emerged into the air of the world

before its time.

But in its mother’s womb—

it is permitted! Excluded is one who has two backs and two spinal columns, for it is forbidden even in its mother’s womb,

and this is in accordance with Rav’s view, for he forbade it even when it was found in its mother’s womb when she was slaughtered.