Niddah 24b — the Talmud in English

And Samuel explains according to his reasoning: four months for a small animal and eight for a large animal. From this and below —

it is forbidden. When does this apply? When its months were not completed,

but rather it came out into the air of the world before its time.

But its months were completed —

it is permitted!

Excluded is one that has two backs and two spinal columns, for although its months were completed —

if it came out into the air of the world, it is forbidden!

For although, from the standpoint of its age, it is fit to live, it will die because of its two spinal columns, and it is forbidden to eat. However, its prohibition applies specifically when it was born before the slaughter of its mother, but if it was found

in its mother’s womb, it is permitted!

For we apply to it, “an animal within an animal you shall eat.” And this is according to Samuel’s method, that he prohibited only the species whose nature is to be born with two backs, and permitted an ordinary animal of this kind.

A tanna taught before Rav: A woman who miscarries a form of a body that is not divided

and is shaped in the pattern of limbs,

and a form of a head that is not divided —

-

might its mother be impure with birth-impurity?

The verse states, “When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male

and she shall be impure for seven days,

and on the eighth day he shall be circumcised”;

and the juxtaposition of the passage of birth-impurity to the passage of birth teaches that only

one who is fit for the covenant of eight

can live until the covenant, which is on the eighth day; his mother is “impure for seven days.”

Excluded are these,

who do not have divisions of limbs,

who are not fit for the covenant of eight,

for they will not continue living until the eighth day, and therefore their mother is not impure through giving birth to them.

Rav said to him,

to the tanna who had taught before him:

And he concluded in it,

in the teaching,

as follows: “And one that has two backs and two spinal columns,”

it too does not render its mother impure, since it is not fit to live.

Rabbi Jeremiah bar Abba considered acting in accordance with Samuel’s ruling

in the case of a woman who gave birth to a fetus that had two backs and two spinal columns, and to render her impure with birth-impurity.

Rav Huna said to him,

to Rabbi Jeremiah:

What is your opinion?

To render her impure as one who gave birth —

as a stringency.

But

it is a stringency that leads to a leniency!

For those who hear will think

that you have given her days of purity,

since, because she has days of impurity, her law is that of one who gives birth, and she also has days of purity; and you will cause them to stumble, since according to Rav she has no days of purity at all.

At least act according to Rav,

for the halakha is like him!

For we hold: The halakha follows Rav in matters of prohibition, both for leniency and for stringency!

Rava said: They have said

the Sages —

a woman gives birth after nine, and gives birth after seven

to a living fetus. Only if she gives birth after eight will it certainly die.

And likewise they said —

an animal

large

gives birth after nine,

and if it gives birth after eight, it is a stillborn.

And there is a question: Does an animal

give birth after seven

and the fetus is not considered a stillborn, and is therefore permitted to eat?

Or it does not give birth

after seven, and the fetus born after seven is forbidden to eat.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: Ta shma:

we learned in the beraita above:

“From this and below —

it is forbidden!” Is it not

that the law of the beraita also concerns

a

animal

large?

For every fetus born in fewer than nine months, including one of seven months, is a stillborn and forbidden?! And the Gemara rejects this:

No,

you cannot prove it from here, for what the beraita wrote, “from this and below it is forbidden,” concerns specifically

a

animal

small,

for one below four months is a stillborn. But in a large animal, if it is seven months old, it is not forbidden.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

This —

what is it?

Granted, if you say

it stands

with regard to a large animal, it was necessary

to inform us that everything below it is forbidden. For

it might have entered your mind to say: Since in a woman a seven-month-old

seven-month-old

also lives in an animal,

a seven-month-old; therefore

it informs us that it does not live

in an animal.

But if you say that it was stated with regard to a small animal,

that what is less than it is forbidden, then

it is obvious!

For

a three-month-old —

does it live?

It is clear that it is a stillborn, so what did the beraita teach?

And the Gemara answers:

It was necessary! It might have entered your mind to say: Everything less by two months —

lives,

for just as a human being and a large animal, which are born after nine months, live if they are born two months earlier, so too, in a small animal, all those born two months earlier than its usual time—that is, after three months—live.

It informs us

that the law of a small animal differs from that of a human being and a large animal, and if it gives birth before the fifth month, the fetus will die.

Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: A woman who miscarries the form of a lilit [

a female demon, which has a human face and wings] —

its mother is impure with birth-impurity!

For

it is a

human

being

and not a demon —

only it has wings!

It was likewise taught: Rabbi Yosei said —

“There was an incident in Simoni, concerning a woman who miscarried the form of a lilit, and the incident came before the Sages, and they said: It is a fetus, only it has wings!”

A woman who miscarries the form of a snake —

Hanina, the son of the brother of Rabbi Joshua, ruled: Its mother is impure with birth-impurity!

Rabbi Yosef went and recounted the matter before Rabban Gamliel

concerning this ruling of Hanina, the son of the brother of Rabbi Joshua, so that Rabban Gamliel would rebuke him and rule that its mother is not impure.

He sent to him

Rabban Gamliel

to Rabbi Joshua: “Take your brother’s son

together with you,

and come

to me!”

As

Rabbi Joshua and the son of his brother Hanina

were walking, Hanina’s daughter-in-law went out to meet

Rabbi Joshua,

and said to him: Rabbi, a woman who miscarries something like a snake —

what is the law?

Rabbi Joshua said to her

Rabbi Joshua —

Its mother is pure!

For Rabbi Joshua too disagreed with Hanina’s ruling.

She said to him,

Hanina’s daughter-in-law, to Rabbi Joshua:

“But in your name my mother-in-law told me —

‘Its mother is impure!’ And

my mother-in-law also added that

Rabbi Joshua

Rabbi Joshua

said to her: ‘For what reason is she

impure?’ —

Since the eyeball

of the snake

is round like that of a human being!”

From her words

of Hanina’s daughter-in-law

Rabbi Joshua remembered

that he had ruled to declare impure a woman who gave birth to the form of a snake.

Rabbi Joshua sent to him

Rabbi Joshua

to Rabban Gamliel —

“Hanina ruled it from my mouth,

and not on his own!”

Abaye said: Learn from this that when a Torah scholar says a matter, he should state a reason for it, for when they remind him

of the reason for the matter,

he remembers

what he said, as happened here: when Hanina’s daughter-in-law mentioned the reason for the matter to Rabbi Joshua, he remembered the halakha itself that he had ruled.

Mishna:

A woman who miscarries a shafir [

the skin of a fetus before sinews, bones, and flesh were created within it]

full of water,

or

full of blood,

or

full of

fluid of

various colors [

colors] different —

she need not be concerned for a fetus!

For she need not be concerned that the limbs of the fetus had already taken shape in it and afterward dissolved; rather, we attribute that they had not yet begun to take shape and that the fetus had not yet been formed, and consequently its mother does not have birth-impurity.

And if the

shafir

was formed,

so that the form of the limbs is partially recognizable , it is a fetus and its mother is impure. However, since it is not recognizable whether it is male or female —

she shall sit [as one who gave birth] to a male and to a female.

Since she is uncertain whether she must observe seven days of impurity for a male or fourteen days of impurity for a female, she must be stringent because of the doubt and observe fourteen days of impurity; afterward she has only twenty-six days of purity remaining from the thirty-three days of purity for a male.

A woman who miscarries a sandal,

one who gives birth to twins, where the face of one of them was entirely crushed because his twin brother pressed against him in the womb, and the form of the limbs is not recognizable in him, and he resembles in appearance a fish whose name is sandal . And together with it the twin who pressed against it was also born, while in the sandal it is not recognizable whether it is male or female. Thus, if the additional fetus is male, she must be stringent on account of the sandal and observe fourteen days of impurity, because perhaps the sandal is female. But her days of purity will be only those of a male, since the sandal may also have been male. But if the second fetus is female, the birth of the sandal neither adds nor detracts, for she observes the days of impurity by virtue of the female whom she gave birth to, and she also observes the days of purity as a female, like any woman who gives birth to male and female twins, where the male does not diminish through his birth the days of purity of the female born with him.

Or

a woman who miscarries

a placenta [

the gestational sac in which the fetus lies within its mother’s womb] is impure with birth-impurity, for even though we did not see that she miscarried, it is clear that there was a fetus, since there is no placenta without a fetus. We attribute that it dissolved and came out without being recognizable. And since it is not known whether the fetus that came out was male or female, because of the doubt she

shall sit [as one who gave birth] to a male and to a female,

and she shall observe fourteen days of impurity and fifty-six days of purity.

Gemara:

And the Gemara asks:

Granted,

a woman who miscarries a shafir that is full of

blood and water

need not be concerned that there was a fetus and it dissolved, for

blood and water are nothing.

But

a woman who miscarries a shafir containing

various colors —

let us suspect that it was a fetus and dissolved,

for the fluid possessing various colors is the body of a fetus that dissolved entirely.

And it answers:

Abaye said:

There is no concern that the fetus dissolved completely, until it became entirely liquid, because

how much wine—

undiluted did the mother of this one drink, whose fetus dissolved inside her womb?

For even if she drank undiluted wine, which causes the fetus to dissolve, it is not possible that she drank such an amount that would cause the fetus to dissolve completely.

Rava said:

The reason that we are not concerned about the fetus dissolving is that “the shapir

full of

shades,”

we learned, and if it is so that it dissolved,

that the fetus dissolved inside the shapir—

it would be lacking!

For liquid occupies less space than a solid, since there is no space between liquid and liquid. Therefore, a shapir in which the fetus inside it dissolved should be partly empty. Since they found the shapir full of shades, there is no concern that the fetus dissolved in it.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: “Shades,”

in the plural,

we learned, and if it is so that it dissolved, the whole

would not have had many colors, but

would have stood in one color,

since it is the nature of a fetus that dissolved to mix completely and its color becomes one .

It was taught: Abba Shaul says—

I was a burier of the dead, and I would look at the bones of the dead,

and I realized that

one who drinks undiluted wine

that was not diluted with water at all—

his bones are burned.

One who drinks wine

diluted

that was diluted with more water than is proper—

his bones are blackened [

black ]. And one who drinks diluted wine

as is proper—

his bones are moistened

and are not dry!

I further realized:

Anyone whose drinking is greater than his eating has his bones burned. One whose eating is greater than his drinking has his bones blackened 129 .

And one who conducted himself

properly

and did not overdo either in eating or in drinking—

his bones are moistened.

It was taught: Abba Shaul

says,

and some say Rabbi Yohanan

is the one who said:

I was a burier of the dead; once I ran after a deer and entered the thighbone [

the thighbone ]

of a dead man, and I ran after it for three parasangs, and

to catch the

deer—

I did not reach it! And the thighbone—

did not come to an end! When I turned back—

they said to me: It was the thighbone of Og, king of Bashan

the thighbone!

It was taught: Abba Shaul said—

I was a burier of the dead; once a cave opened beneath me, and I stood in the eyeball of a dead man—

and the eyeball was so large that I sank into it

up to my nose! When I turned back, they said to me: It was the eye of Absalom!

And lest you say that Abba Shaul was a dwarf

and therefore sank only up to his nose—

Abba Shaul was tall in his generation!

And Rabbi Tarfon reached the shoulder

of Abba Shaul,

and Rabbi Tarfon was tall in his generation!

And Rabbi Meir reached the shoulder

of Rabbi Tarfon,

and Rabbi Meir was tall in his generation!

And Rabbi reached the shoulder

of Rabbi Meir,

and Rabbi was tall in his generation!

And Rabbi Hiyya reached the shoulder

of Rabbi,

and Rabbi Hiyya was tall in his generation!

And Rav reached the shoulder

of Rabbi Hiyya,

and Rav was tall in his generation!

And Rav Yehuda reached the shoulder

of Rav,

and Rav Yehuda was tall in his generation! And Ada

a man

the attendant

of the Sages

reached the shoulder

of Rav Yehuda.