Niddah 24b (כד:) — the Talmud in English

And Shmuel explains it in accordance with his reasoning: Four months for a small animal, and eight months for a large animal. From that point and below -

it is forbidden. In what circumstance is this statement said? When its months were not completed,

but it emerged into the air of the world before its time.

But when its months were completed -

it is permitted!

The case of an animal that emerged with two backs and two spinal columns is different, for even though its months were completed,

if it emerged into the air of the world, it is forbidden!

Although, because of its age, it is fit to live, it will die because of its two spinal columns, and it is forbidden to eat . However, this prohibition applies specifically when it was born before its mother was slaughtered. But if it was found

in its mother’s womb, it is permitted!

For we apply to it the verse: “You shall eat an animal within an animal.” This is in accordance with Shmuel’s position, that he prohibited only the species whose nature it is to be born with two backs, while permitting an ordinary animal of this kind.

A tanna taught before Rav: If a woman miscarries a formed body that is not articulated

and shaped with the configuration of limbs,

or a formed head that is not articulated

-

might its mother become impure with the impurity of childbirth?

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.”

The juxtaposition of the passage concerning the impurity of childbirth to the passage concerning birth teaches that only

one who is fit for the covenant of circumcision on the eighth day

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

This excludes these,

which have no articulation of limbs,

which are not fit for the covenant on the eighth day,

as they will not live until the eighth day. Therefore, their mother does not become impure when giving birth to them

. Rav said

to the tanna who had taught before him:

And conclude it with this,

in the baraita:

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

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

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba considered acting in accordance with Shmuel’s position

in the case of a woman who gave birth to a fetus with two backs and two spinal columns, and rendering her impure with the impurity of childbirth

. Rav Huna said

to Rabbi Yirmeya:

What is your reasoning?

To render her impure as a woman who has given birth -

as a stringency.

But

this is a stringency that leads to leniency!

For those who hear of it may think

that you grant her days of purity,

since, as she has days of impurity, her status is that of a woman who has given birth, and she therefore also has days of purity. In this way, you will cause them to err, since according to Rav she has no days of purity at all

. At least act in accordance with Rav,

whose view is the halakha!

For we hold: The halakha follows Rav in matters of prohibitions, whether toward leniency or toward stringency!

Rava said: The Sages have said

that

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

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

And they likewise said that

a

large

animal gives birth after nine months,

but if it gives birth after eight months, the offspring is a stillborn.

The question arises: Does an animal

give birth after seven months,

so that the offspring is not considered a stillborn and is permitted to eat?

Or does it not give birth

after seven months, and is an offspring born after seven months forbidden to eat

? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Come and hear:

We learned in the baraita above:

From that point and below -

it is forbidden! Is that not

a ruling that also applies to

a

large

animal?

Thus, every offspring born in fewer than nine months, including one born after seven months, is a stillborn and forbidden? The Gemara rejects this:

No,

this cannot be proved from here. For what the baraita states, “From that point and below it is forbidden,” applies specifically to

a

small

animal, for one born before four months is a stillborn. But a large animal born after seven months is not forbidden.

The Gemara objects:

And it raises a difficulty:

This -

what?

Granted, if you say

it refers

to a large animal, it is necessary

to teach us that anything born before that point is forbidden. For

it might have entered your mind to say: Since a human being lives

after seven months,

an animal also lives

after seven months; therefore

it teaches us that it does not live

in the case of an animal.

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

that anything born before that point is forbidden,

is this not obvious?

For

can one born after three months -

live?

It is clearly a stillborn, so what does the baraita teach?

The Gemara answers:

It is necessary! It might have entered your mind to say that anything born two months earlier

lives,

for just as a human being and a large animal, which are born after nine months, live if born two months early, so too, in the case of a small animal, anything born two months early—namely, after three months—lives.

It therefore teaches us

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

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A woman who miscarries the form of a lilit

(a female demon, which has a human face and wings) -

her mother is impure with the impurity of childbirth!

For it is

a human

offspring

that

is not a demon -

except that it has wings!

It was taught likewise: Rabbi Yosei said -

There was an incident in Simoni involving a woman who miscarried the form of a lilit, and the matter came before the Sages, who said: It is a fetus, except that it has wings!

If a woman miscarries the form of a snake,

Ḥanina, the nephew of Rabbi Yehoshua, ruled: Her mother is impure with the impurity of childbirth!

Rabbi Yosef went and reported the matter to Rabban Gamliel

concerning this ruling of Ḥanina, the nephew of Rabbi Yehoshua, so that Rabban Gamliel would reprimand him and rule that his mother does not become impure.

Rabban Gamliel sent to him,

Rabbi Yehoshua:

Take your nephew

with you,

and come

to me!

As they were traveling,

Rabbi Yehoshua and Ḥanina, his nephew,

Ḥanina’s daughter-in-law went out to meet

Rabbi Yehoshua

and said to him: Rabbi, what is the ruling concerning a woman who miscarries something resembling a snake -

what is the law?

Rabbi Yehoshua said to her

:

Her mother is pure!

For Rabbi Yehoshua, too, disagreed with Ḥanina’s ruling.

His

daughter-in-law, Ḥanina’s, said to Rabbi Yehoshua:

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

her mother is impure!? And

my mother-in-law further added that

he said to her

Rabbi Yehoshua:

For what reason is she

impure? -

Because the pupil of its eye

of the snake

is round like that of a human being!

From her words,

Ḥanina’s daughter-in-law,

Rabbi Yehoshua remembered

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

Rabbi Yehoshua sent to

Rabban Gamliel

and said -

Ḥanina issued the ruling from my authority,

and not on his own authority!

Abaye said: Learn from this that when a Torah scholar states a matter, he should state its reason, so that when they remind him

of the reason for the matter,

he remembers

what he said—as occurred here, when Ḥanina’s daughter-in-law mentioned the reason for the ruling to Rabbi Yehoshua, and he remembered the ruling itself that he had issued.

Mishna:

If a woman miscarries a safir

(the fetus’s membrane, before sinews, bones, and flesh have formed within it)

, filled with water,

or

filled with blood,

or

filled

with fluid of various

colors

(hues) -

she need not be concerned for a fetus!

She need not be concerned that the fetus’s limbs had already begun to form and subsequently dissolved. Rather, we assume that they had not yet begun to form and that the fetus had not yet been created; consequently, its mother does not become impure with the impurity of childbirth.

And if the

safir

was formed,

with some of the form of its limbs recognizable , it is a fetus and its mother becomes impure. However, since it is not recognizable whether it is male or female -

she must observe the periods for a male and for 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 uncertainty and observe fourteen days of impurity. Thereafter, she has only the twenty-six days of purity remaining from the thirty-three days of purity prescribed for a male.

If a woman miscarries a sandal,

a woman who gives birth to twins, one of whose faces was entirely crushed because its twin pressed against it in the womb, so that no form of its limbs is recognizable, and its appearance resembles that of a fish called a sandal . The other twin, which pressed against it, was born together with it, and in the sandal it is not recognizable whether it is male or female. If the other fetus is male, she must be stringent because of the sandal and observe fourteen days of impurity, since perhaps the sandal is female. But her days of purity are only those of a male, since the sandal may also have been male. However, if the other fetus is female, the birth of the sandal makes no difference: she observes the days of impurity because of the female she gave birth to, and she likewise observes the days of purity as for a female, as is the case with any woman who gives birth to male and female twins, since the birth of the male does not diminish the days of purity of the female born with him.

Or

if a woman miscarries

a shelia

(the gestational sac in which the fetus lies in its mother’s womb), she becomes impure with the impurity of childbirth. Even though we did not see that she miscarried a fetus, it is clear that there was a fetus, since there is no shelia without a fetus. We assume that it dissolved and emerged without its form being recognizable. Since it is unknown whether the fetus that emerged was male or female,

she must observe the periods for a male and for a female,

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

Gemara:

The Gemara asks:

Granted,

a woman who miscarries a safir filled with

blood and water

need not be concerned that there was a fetus that dissolved, because

blood and water are nothing.

But

a woman who miscarries a safir containing

various colors -

let us suspect that it was a fetus that dissolved,

since the fluid with its various colors may be the body of a fetus that dissolved completely.

And it answers:

Abaye said:

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

how much undiluted wine—

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

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 we are not concerned that the fetus dissolved is that

“a fetal sac (shafir) full”

of colors,

we learned in the Mishna; and if it is indeed the case that it dissolved,

that the fetus dissolved inside the fetal sac—

it would be lacking!

Liquid occupies less space than a solid, since there is no empty space between liquid and liquid. Therefore, a fetal sac in which the fetus dissolved should be partially empty. Since they found the fetal sac full of colors, there is no concern that the fetus dissolved inside it.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: “Colors”

is a plural expression;

we learned in the Mishna, and if it is indeed the case that it dissolved, the entire

sac would not have contained many colors, but

it would have remained of a single color,

since it is the nature of a dissolved fetus to mix completely and become a single color.

It was taught in a baraita: Abba Shaul says—

I was a gravedigger, and I would examine the bones of the dead,

and I observed that

one who drinks undiluted wine

that was not diluted with water at all—

his bones are scorched.

One who drinks wine

that is diluted

that was diluted with more water than is proper—

his bones are blackened

[black]. And one who drinks wine diluted

properly—

his bones are coated

and are not dry!

I also observed:

Anyone whose drinking is greater than his eating has scorched bones; whose eating is greater than his drinking has blackened bones 129 .

And one who conducted himself

properly

and did not overindulge either in eating or in drinking,

his bones are coated.

It was taught in a baraita: Abba Shaul

says,

and some say Rabbi Yohanan

is the one who said:

I was a gravedigger. Once I ran after a deer and entered the thigh bone

[the thighbone]

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

to catch the

deer—

I did not reach it! And the thigh bone—

it did not end! When I turned back,

they said to me: It was the thigh bone of Og, king of Bashan!

the thigh bone!

It was taught in a baraita: Abba Shaul said—

I was a gravedigger. Once a cave opened beneath me, and I stood in the eyeball of a dead person—

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 that is why he sank only up to his nose,

Abba Shaul was tall for his generation!

And Rabbi Tarfon reached Abba Shaul’s shoulder,

of Abba Shaul,

and Rabbi Tarfon was tall for his generation!

And Rabbi Meir reached Rabbi Tarfon’s shoulder,

of Rabbi Tarfon,

and Rabbi Meir was tall for his generation!

And Rabbi reached Rabbi Meir’s shoulder,

of Rabbi Meir,

and Rabbi was tall for his generation!

And Rabbi Hiyya reached Rabbi’s shoulder,

of Rabbi,

and Rabbi Hiyya was tall for his generation!

And Rav reached Rabbi Hiyya’s shoulder,

of Rabbi Hiyya,

and Rav was tall for his generation!

And Rav Yehuda reached Rav’s shoulder,

of Rav,

and Rav Yehuda was tall for his generation! And Ada

[a person’s name],

the attendant

[the servant of the Sages]

reached the shoulder

of Rav Yehuda.