Niddah 25a (כה.) — the Talmud in English

And Parshatvina [a person's name]

the name of a person]

of Pumbedita stands up to Ada the bailiff's midsection [the middle of his body].

the middle of his body].

And everyone from Parshatvina of Pumbedita stood up to his loins!

his hips]

They asked Rabbi:

In the case of a woman who discharges an amniotic sac full of flesh

but in which there is no formation of limbs—

what is the halakha?

He said to them:

I have not heard

whether its mother is impure with the impurity of childbirth.

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before him:

This is what Father said:

If she discharged an amniotic sac

full of blood—

she is impure with the impurity of menstruation!

If the amniotic sac was

full of flesh,

even without formation of limbs—

she is impure with the impurity of childbirth!

Rabbi said to him,

Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei:

Had you told us a novel matter in the name of your father—

that is, had you told us only the ruling that an amniotic sac full of flesh causes impurity—it would have been reasonable to assume that your father originated this ruling, rather than merely repeating statements that he had heard from others. And

we would have accepted your report,

as the halakha is indeed in accordance with your father's words.

But

now,

that you have added that an amniotic sac full of blood causes impurity due to menstruation—and in this matter we know that there is already a dispute, demonstrating that your father was quoting the words of others rather than originating the ruling ourselves—we will not accept your statement. For there is no necessity to assume that your father quoted only the ruling established as halakha, since

from the fact that the first statement,

that an amniotic sac full of blood causes impurity due to menstruation,

was stated as the opinion of an individual,

as the Sages disagree and maintain that when the blood is gathered within the membrane of the amniotic sac, the woman does not become impure with the impurity of menstruation; and only

Sumakhos

is the one

who said

this

in the name of Rabbi Meir, and the halakha does not follow him.

Therefore,

this too,

the ruling concerning an amniotic sac full of flesh, which causes impurity,

perhaps he stated in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, and the halakha does not follow Rabbi Yehoshua!

Rabbi explains where we find that Rabbi Yehoshua does not require formation of limbs:

As it was taught in a beraita: In the case of a woman who discharges an amniotic sac in which there is no formation of limbs—

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

This is a

child,

as the membrane of the amniotic sac alone is sufficient for it to be deemed a child, and she is rendered impure through childbirth!

And the Sages say: It is not a child

so long as the amniotic sac does not contain formed limbs. The halakha follows the Sages, who maintain that the membrane alone is not deemed a child. Therefore, it is impossible to establish the halakha in accordance with Rabbi Yosei concerning an amniotic sac full of flesh, since perhaps Rabbi Yosei stated it only according to Rabbi Yehoshua, and the reason for the impurity is the membrane of the amniotic sac alone , and not that Rabbi Yosei originated a ruling that an amniotic sac full of flesh causes impurity according to everyone. The question therefore remains unresolved according to the Sages, who did not consider the membrane sufficient: Can the flesh filling it cause it to be deemed a child?

The Gemara clarifies the statement of the beraita:

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: The dispute

between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehoshua concerning a woman who discharges an amniotic sac without formed limbs is

when it is cloudy,

that is, only when the fluid of the amniotic sac is cloudy does she become impure, as Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that the cloudiness of the fluid proves that there was a child that dissolved.

But when it is clear,

when the amniotic fluid was clear—

according to everyone, it is not a child!

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The dispute is when it is clear!

They raised a dilemma:

What is the intention of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? Is it that

when it is clear there is a dispute, but when it is cloudy everyone agrees

that it is considered a

child

and its mother is impure?

Or perhaps, the dispute applies in both this case and that,

and the novel aspect of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's statement is that even when it is clear, Rabbi Yehoshua disputes the matter and maintains that it is a child? And we conclude:

The matter remains unresolved.

The Gemara returns to the fundamental dispute between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi:

The following beraita poses a challenge: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya expounded this verse:

“And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skin

and clothed them.”

“Garments of skin” means garments for the sake of the skin, which cover the skin of a person. This is inferred from the fact that instead of writing “garments for Adam,” the Torah wrote “garments for skin.”

This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not make skin for a person unless he has been formed,

and the essential formation of a person is completed with the formation of the skin .

The Gemara infers:

Apparently,

the status of a child

depends on the skin,

and it makes no difference what is inside it. Therefore,

it makes no difference whether it is cloudy or whether it is clear! Granted, if you say

that Rabbi Yehoshua said that

there is a dispute when it is clear,

as explained by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

then it is necessary for the verse

to teach Rabbi Yehoshua that because of the skin alone it is considered a child.

But if you say

that the dispute applies only

when it is cloudy,

as Reish Lakish said, whereas when it is clear, containing only skin, she does not become impure—

why do I need the verse?

It is merely

a matter of logic

to render her impure. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, even Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that skin alone does not cause it to be considered a child; his entire dispute with the Sages concerns whether cloudy fluid proves that there was a child that dissolved. This dispute does not involve laws derived from verses, but rather the natural reality of fetal development?!

Rather, conclude from it that there is a dispute when it is clear,

in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and this is a refutation of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.

Conclude from it!

The Gemara cites additional amoraim who disputed the same matter as Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. They too raised a similar difficulty against those who say that the dispute applies specifically when the water in the sac is cloudy:

The Gemara cites additional amoraim who disagreed in the dispute between Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and they too raised a similar difficulty against those who maintain that the dispute applies specifically when the fluid in the amniotic sac is cloudy:

And likewise Rabbi Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: The dispute is when it is cloudy, but when it is clear, everyone agrees that it is not a child,

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.

Rava raised an objection to Rabbi Naḥman:

We learned One who purchases an animal from a gentile and does not know whether it had previously given birth, and is uncertain whether he must give its first offspring to a kohen: Rabbi Yishmael says: If the goat he purchased is one year old, it certainly has not previously given birth, and he must give the offspring to a kohen. From that point onward, it is uncertain whether it had previously given birth!

Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yishmael: If an animal is exempted from the status of firstborn only through the birth of an actual offspring, your statement would be correct, since only a one-year-old goat gives birth to a fully formed offspring.

Rather,

this is not so, for they said that there are additional

signs of offspring,

which exempt an animal from firstborn status, besides the birth of an offspring:

a.

In the case of a small domesticated animal—

a discharge,

for if a discharge of a fetus that dissolved in its womb emerged from it, it is treated as though it had already given birth.

b.

In the case of a large domesticated animal—

the placenta,

for if a placenta emerged from it, even though no offspring was found inside it, we say that there had been an offspring in it that dissolved.

c.

In the case of a woman—

an amniotic sac or a placenta,

as either an amniotic sac or a placenta emerging from her is a sign that there had been a child in it that dissolved. Since either of these is sufficient to exempt an animal from firstborn status, it is likewise possible that a discharge emerged from the goat before it reached one year of age, in which case the offspring need not be given to a kohen.

Rava draws an inference in order to challenge Rabbi Naḥman:

But an amniotic sac in the case of an animal—

does not exempt

it from firstborn status; this applies only in the case of a woman. Therefore, in the case of an animal, the beraita mentioned only a placenta, whereas in the case of a woman it added an amniotic sac as well.

Granted, if you say that there is a dispute when it is clear,

and the skin alone causes it to be considered an offspring,

for that reason

a woman differs from an animal: logically, skin is not an offspring, and a derivation from a verse is needed to introduce this ruling. Therefore, specifically

in the case of a woman, for whom the verse was expounded, as derived from the verse, “And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skin,”

as derived from the verse, “And the Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife,”

it exempts her

through the birth of

an amniotic sac,

since once we have learned that skin itself is called an offspring, it is also considered the first issue of the womb, and she is exempted from the firstborn requirement. But

in the case of an animal, for which the verse was not expounded

for it—

the verse—

does not exempt it

through the birth of

an amniotic sac from firstborn status, since logically skin is not an offspring.

from firstborn status, because logically the skin is not an offspring.

But if you say that the dispute applies when it is cloudy,

and they disputed the matter on the basis of logic—whether cloudiness is considered proof that the offspring dissolved—

since it is a matter of logic,

what difference is there between a woman and an animal?!

The Gemara answers:

Do you think that Rabbi Yehoshua resolved the matter

and held that a cloudy amniotic sac is certainly an offspring?

Rabbi Yehoshua was uncertain

whether the cloudiness of the amniotic sac proves that an offspring dissolved within it,

and he proceeds here stringently and there stringently!

Rabbi Yehoshua was stringent with regard to prohibitions wherever there was reason to be stringent, but he was not stringent in monetary law; therefore, there is a distinction between a woman and an animal.

For

in the case of a woman, it is a monetary matter,

as the question is whether the son born after she discharged a cloudy amniotic sac is a firstborn or not; and regarding the obligation to pay five sela for the redemption of the son, this is

a monetary uncertainty,

in which we follow

the lenient ruling.

Therefore, the ruling there is that in the case of a woman, the birth of an amniotic sac is a sign of an offspring, and it is unnecessary to redeem the son born after it. But

in the case of an animal,

where the question is whether the offspring born after the discharge of an amniotic sac is a firstborn or not, the matter

concerns a prohibition, as there is the prohibition against shearing and working

the animal, and

in a case of uncertainty concerning a prohibition, one rules stringently. Therefore, the Mishna in Bekhorot maintains that in the case of an animal, the birth of an amniotic sac is not a sign of an offspring; because of the uncertainty, the offspring born after it must be treated with the stringencies of a firstborn .

Therefore, the Mishna in Bekhorot holds that in the case of an animal, the birth of an amniotic sac is not a sign of a fetus, because due to the uncertainty, the subsequent offspring must be treated with the stringencies applicable to a firstborn .

Since the Mishna in Bekhorot does not distinguish between a human being and an animal, but rather between prohibitory laws, in which one is stringent, and monetary laws, in which one is lenient,

so too, in the case of a woman

who gives birth to an amniotic sac—

it is a case of uncertain ritual impurity, and one rules stringently,

as in every case of uncertainty concerning a prohibition.

The Gemara asks:

But is Rabbi Yehoshua uncertain

concerning the matter?

But the verse says,

implying that he rendered her certainly impure and not merely impure due to uncertainty.

The Gemara answers: Everything for which Rabbi Yehoshua renders a woman who gives birth to an amniotic sac certainly impure is only

by rabbinic decree, while the verse is merely an asmakhta!

By Torah law, she is in a state of uncertainty.

Rav Ḥanina bar Shelemya said to Rav:

Here is Rabbi,

who says that he has not heard the ruling concerning a woman who discharges an amniotic sac full of flesh.

Here is Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei,

who said in the name of Rabbi Yosei that she is impure with the impurity of childbirth.

Here is Rabbi Oshaya,

who says that Rabbi Yehoshua and the Sages disputed the status of an amniotic sac without formed limbs when it is cloudy, but not when it is clear.

Here is Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

who said that Rabbi Yehoshua and the Sages disputed the matter when it is clear.

Master,

in accordance with whom do you hold?

He said to him,

Rav said to Rav Ḥanina bar Shelemya:

I say: In both this case and that case,

whether it is clear or cloudy,

she need not be concerned,

not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that the skin itself is an offspring.

And Shmuel said: In both this case and that case, she must be concerned!

Even when it is clear, there is concern that perhaps there was an offspring in the amniotic sac, and because of the uncertainty she observes the days of impurity, but she does not have days of purity, since it is an uncertain birth.

And Shmuel follows his own reasoning:

For when Rav Dimi came, he said: Never

did they declare

[purified]

an amniotic sac in Nehardea,

so that every woman who gave birth to an amniotic sac observed two weeks of impurity due to the uncertainty ,

except for that one amniotic sac that came before Shmuel,

who was the head of Nehardea,

which was so clear that one could place a strand of hair on one side and see it from the other side!

The amniotic sac was so clear that they could see a strand of hair placed on one side from the opposite side of the sac. Therefore,

Shmuel said

—Shmuel said:

If it were indeed an offspring, it would not have been so transparent

[clear]

to such an extent!

We learned in the Mishna:

And if it was formed,

she observes the periods of impurity for a male and for a female.

The Gemara explains how the limbs of a fetus appear when it is considered formed:

The Sages taught: What is a formed amniotic sac? Abba Shaul says: Its initial formation

of the fetus is

from its head,

and its two eyes

appear

like two drops of a fly! [like the two eyes of a fly].

like the two eyes of a fly].

The Gemara adds:

Rabbi Hiyya taught:

and that the two eyes be

far apart from one another!

The beraita continues:

two nostrils—

the two openings of the fetus’s nostrils are visible

like two drops of a fly!

The Gemara adds:

Rabbi Hiyya taught: And they are close—

the openings of the nostrils—

to one another!

The beraita continues:

and its mouth is stretched—

like the breadth of a hair!

For the mouth is merely a small slit, resembling a taut hair.

And its genital organ,

the head of the male organ, appears

like a lentil.

And if it was female—

it is considered

[it appears]

like a barley grain lengthwise,

as though it is split like a barley grain at that place.

And as for the hands and feet being cut off,

it

still does not have them,

as stated at the beginning of the beraita: only the head is complete in its form.

And concerning it, it is explicitly stated in the received tradition

that at this stage of gestation the fetus already possesses the spirit of life and is therefore considered a fetus. As it is stated in the Book of Job: “

Did You not pour me out like milk, and curdle me like cheese? You clothed me with skin and flesh, and covered me with bones and sinews;

146. You have granted me life and kindness,

and Your providence has preserved my spirit!”

Thus, immediately after the formation of the bones and sinews, the Holy One, blessed be He, gives the fetus the spirit of life, and the charge and command of God preserves this spirit within it.