Niddah 25a — the Talmud in English

And Parshatbina [a person’s name]

the name of a person]

of Pumbedita stands up to Adda the bailiff only as far as his middle [the middle of his body].

the middle of his body].

And everyone in Pumbedita stands up to Parshatbina only as far as his loins! [his hips]

his hips]

They asked before Rabbi:

A woman who discharges a shafir full of flesh

but it has no formation of limbs—

what is [the law]?

He said to them—

I have not heard

whether its mother is impure with childbirth impurity.

Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosei said before him—

This is what Father said:

she discharged a shafir

full of blood—

she is impure with menstrual impurity! A

shafir

full of flesh,

even without formation of limbs—

she is impure with childbirth impurity!

He said to him,

Rabbi to Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosei:

If you had told us a novel matter in your father’s name

that you were telling us only the law that a shafir full of flesh conveys impurity, it would have been reasonable that your father was the one who innovated this law, and not that he repeated matters he had heard from others. And

we would have heard you

that the halakha is indeed in accordance with your father’s words.

But

now,

that you added for us that a shafir full of blood conveys menstrual impurity—and in this matter we know that there is already a dispute, proving that your father in his words quoted the words of others and did not innovate them himself—we therefore will not accept your words. For there is no necessity that your father quoted only that which was established as the halakha, since

from this first one, that a shafir full of blood conveys menstrual impurity,

that an amniotic sac full of blood causes menstrual impurity,

he stated it as the opinion of an individual,

for the Sages disagree and hold that if the blood is gathered inside the skin of the shafir, the woman does not become impure with menstrual impurity. It was only

as Sumakhos

she

said

this

in the name of Rabbi Meir, and the halakha is not in accordance with him,

and therefore

this too, a shafir full of flesh, which conveys impurity,

the ruling that an amniotic sac full of flesh causes impurity,

perhaps she stated it in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, and the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua!

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

For it was taught: A woman who discharges a shafir that is not formed—

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

this is a

offspring,

for the skin of the shafir alone is sufficient to classify it as an offspring, and she is impure with childbirth impurity!

And the Sages say: It is not an offspring

so long as the shafir does not contain formed limbs. And the halakha is in accordance with the Sages, that the skin alone is not considered an offspring. Therefore, it is impossible to establish the halakha in accordance with Rabbi Yosei regarding a shafir full of flesh, because perhaps Rabbi Yosei stated it only according to the position of Rabbi Yehoshua, and the reason for the impurity is the skin of the shafir alone , and not that Rabbi Yosei innovated that a shafir full of flesh conveys impurity according to everyone. And the uncertainty remains according to the Sages, who did not suffice with the skin: whether the filling of flesh can classify it as an offspring.

The Gemara clarifies the words 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 a shafir that is not formed is

in an opaque one,

and only when the waters of the shafir are opaque is she impure, for Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the opacity of the water proves that there was an offspring that disintegrated.

But in a clear one,

where the waters of the shafir were clear—

according to everyone, it is not an offspring!

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In a clear one there is a dispute!

It was asked of them:

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

in a clear one there is a dispute, but in an opaque one, according to everyone it is

considered an

offspring

and its mother is impure?

Or perhaps, both in this and in that there is a dispute,

and the innovation of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is that even in a clear one Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees and holds that it is an offspring? And we conclude:

Let it stand!

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

An objection was raised: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania expounded this—

“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 garments of the skin of a person. Since, instead of writing “garments for Adam,” the Torah wrote “garments for skin,”

it 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:

It follows,

the status of an offspring

depends on the skin,

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

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

that Rabbi Yehoshua said

there is a dispute in a clear one,

as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi explained,

then the verse was needed

by Rabbi Yehoshua to teach us that because of the skin alone it is considered an offspring.

But, if you say

only

in an opaque one there is a dispute,

as Reish Lakish said, but in a clear one, which contains only skin, she does not become impure—

why do I need a verse?

This

is merely logical reasoning

for declaring it impure: according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Rabbi Yehoshua too admits that through the skin alone it is not considered an offspring, and his entire dispute with the Sages is whether opaque water proves that there was an offspring. This dispute does not concern laws derived from verses, but the physical reality of fetuses?!

Rather, conclude from this that there is a dispute in a clear one,

and in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi; and it is a refutation of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.

Conclude from this!

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 brings additional amoraim who disputed the same issue as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and they too raised a similar objection against those who hold that the dispute is specifically when the waters in the shafir are opaque:

And likewise Rabbi Nahman said that Rabbah bar Avuha said: The dispute is in an opaque one, but in a clear one, according to everyone it is not an offspring,

and this is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish.

Rava raised an objection to Rabbi Nahman:

We learned One who purchases an animal from a gentile and does not know whether it has already given birth or has not given birth, and is uncertain whether he is obligated to give the first offspring that it will bear to a koen: Rabbi Yishmael says, if the goat he purchased is one year old, it certainly did not give birth previously, and he is obligated to give the offspring to the koen. From this point onward, it is uncertain!

Rabbi Akiva said to [Rabbi Yishmael]: If the animal is exempt from the firstborn status only through an offspring, as you say, then your words would be correct: only a one-year-old goat gives birth to a complete offspring.

But,

this is not so, for they said:

The sign of an offspring,

which exempts the animal from firstborn status, in addition to the birth of an offspring:

a.

In a small animal—

a discharge,

for if a discharge of an offspring that had disintegrated in its womb came out of it, it is like one that has already given birth.

b.

In a large animal—

the placenta,

for if a placenta came out of it, even though no offspring was found inside it, we say that there was an offspring in it and it disintegrated.

c.

In a woman—

a shafir and a placenta,

either a shafir or a placenta that emerges from her is a sign of an offspring, which was inside it and disintegrated. Since these suffice to exempt from firstborn status, it is possible that even before the goat was one year old a discharge came out of it, and it is exempt from giving the offspring to the koen.

Rava infers in order to object to Rabbi Nahman:

But a shafir in an animal

does not exempt

from firstborn status, but only in a woman. Therefore, in an animal the beraita mentioned only a placenta, whereas in a woman it added a shafir as well.

Granted, if you say that in a clear one there is a dispute,

and the skin alone classifies it as an offspring,

for that reason

a woman differs from an animal, because logically skin is not an offspring, and a derivation from a verse is required to innovate this law. 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 a

shafir,

for once we have learned that the skin itself is called an offspring, it is also considered a first opening of the womb, and she is exempt from firstborn status. But

in the case of an animal, for which the

for it,

verse was not expounded—

it does not exempt her

through the birth of a

shafir

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

But, if you say that in an opaque one there is a dispute,

and they disputed on the basis of reasoning—whether the opacity is considered proof that the offspring disintegrated—

since it is reasoning—

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

The Gemara answers:

Do you think that Rabbi Yehoshua resolved it as certain

that an opaque shafir is certainly an offspring?

Rabbi Yehoshua was uncertain

whether the opacity of the shafir is proof that an offspring disintegrated in it,

and he proceeds here stringently and there stringently!

Rabbi Yehoshua was stringent in matters of prohibitions wherever there was a side for stringency, but he was not stringent in monetary law, and therefore there is a distinction between a woman and an animal.

For

with regard to a woman, it is a monetary matter,

for the issue is whether the son born after she discharged an opaque shafir is a firstborn or not; and regarding the obligation of five selaim for the redemption of the son, this is

a monetary uncertainty,

in which we proceed

leniently.

Therefore, the law there is that in a woman the birth of a shafir is a sign of an offspring, and there is no need to redeem the son who follows it. But

with regard to an animal,

where the issue is whether the offspring born after it discharged a shafir is a firstborn or not, the issue

is one of prohibition, because there is the prohibition concerning shearing and work,

the animal, and

and an uncertainty concerning prohibition is treated stringently,

and therefore the Mishna in Bekhorot held that in an animal the birth of a shafir is not a sign of an offspring, so that because of the uncertainty the offspring following it must be treated with the stringencies of a firstborn .

And since the Mishna in Bekhorot makes no distinction between a human being and an animal, but the distinction is between laws of prohibition, in which we are stringent, and monetary laws, in which we are lenient,

so too, with regard to a woman

who gives birth to a shafir—

an uncertainty of impurity is treated stringently,

as is the law concerning every uncertainty of prohibition.

The Gemara asks:

But was he uncertain

Rabbi Yehoshua?

But the verse says,

implying that he declared her impure with certainty and not through uncertainty?

And it answers: Everything for which Rabbi Yehoshua declared a woman who gives birth to a shafir certainly impure is only

rabbinic, and the verse is merely an asmakhta!

By Torah law, she is indeed uncertain.

Rav Hanina bar Shelamya said to Rav:

Here is Rabbi,

who says that he did not hear the law concerning a woman who discharges a shafir full of flesh.

Here is Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosei,

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

Here is Rabbi Oshaya,

who says that Rabbi Yehoshua and the Sages disputed concerning a shafir that is not formed in an opaque one and not in a clear one.

Here is Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

who said that Rabbi Yehoshua and the Sages disputed in a clear one.

Master—

in accordance with whom does he hold?

He said to him,

Rav to Rav Hanina bar Shelamya—

I say: This one and that one,

both in a clear one and in an opaque one,

she need not be concerned,

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

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

Even in a clear one there is a concern that perhaps there was an offspring in the shafir, and because of the uncertainty she observes the days of impurity, but she does not have days of purity, for it is an uncertain offspring.

And Shmuel followed his own reasoning—

for when Rav Dimi came, he said: Never

did he declare pure [declare free of impurity]

[purified]

a shafir in Nehardea,

for every woman who gave birth to a shafir observed two weeks of impurity because of the uncertainty ,

except for that one shafir that came before Shmuel,

who was the head of Nehardea,

for one placed a hair upon it on this side and saw it on the other side!

The shafir was so clear that they could see a hair placed on one side from the other side of the shafir. Therefore

he said,

Shmuel—

If it were indeed an offspring, it would not have been transparent [clear]

[clear]

to such an extent!

We learned in the Mishna:

And if it was formed—

she shall observe [the impurity periods] for a male and for a female.

The Gemara explains what the limbs of the fetus look like for it to be considered formed:

The Sages taught: What is a formed shafir? Abba Shaul says: The beginning of its formation

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].

And the Gemara adds:

Rabbi Hiyya taught:

and that the two eyes be

distant from one another!

And the beraita continues:

two nostrils—

the two openings of the fetus’s nose are visible

like two drops of a fly!

And the Gemara adds:

Rabbi Hiyya taught: and [that they be] close—

the openings of the nose—

to one another!

And the beraita continues:

and its mouth is stretched—

like the thickness of a hair!

For the mouth is only a small slit, and resembles a stretched hair.

And its body,

the head of the male’s genital organ, is visible

like a lentil.

And if it was female—

it is judged

[appears]

like a barley grain lengthwise,

so that it appears as though it is split like a barley grain in that place.

And as for cut hands and feet,

it

still does not have them,

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

And concerning it, it is expounded in the received tradition

that at this stage of the pregnancy the fetus already has the breath of life, and therefore is 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 . Life and kindness You performed with me—

and Your visitation guarded my spirit!”

This shows that immediately after the formation of the bones and sinews, the Holy One, blessed be He, gives the fetus the breath of life, and the command of God and His mitzva preserve this breath within it.