Niddah 24a

עַד הָאַרְכּוּבָּה. רַבִּי יַנַּאי אוֹמֵר: עַד לִנְקָבָיו, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: עַד מְקוֹם טַבּוּרוֹ.

Until above the knee. Rabbi Yannai says: Until his orifices. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Yehoshua: Until the location of his navel.

בֵּין רַבִּי זַכַּאי לְרַבִּי יַנַּאי אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ ״טְרֵפָה חַיָּה״, מָר סָבַר ״טְרֵפָה חַיָּה״, וּמָר סָבַר ״טְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה״.

The Gemara explains the dispute between the amora’im : The difference between the opinion of Rabbi Zakkai and that of Rabbi Yannai is whether a tereifa can survive beyond twelve months. One Sage, Rabbi Yannai, holds that a tereifa can survive beyond twelve months. Therefore, although one whose legs were removed until above the knee has the status of a tereifa , if a woman discharges a fetus of this form she is impure. Only if the fetus lacks legs until his orifices is the woman pure, as such a person cannot survive. And one Sage, Rabbi Zakkai, holds that a tereifa cannot survive beyond twelve months. Therefore, even if the fetus lacks legs only from above the knee and not from his orifices, the woman is not impure.

בֵּין רַבִּי יַנַּאי לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: (ניטל) [נִיטְּלָה] יָרֵךְ וְחָלָל שֶׁלָּהּ — נְבֵלָה.

The difference between the opinion of Rabbi Yannai and the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who both agree that a tereifa can survive, is with regard to a statement of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: If the thigh, i.e., the hind leg of the animal, and its recess were removed from an animal before slaughter, the animal is considered an unslaughtered carcass; consequently, it is forbidden in consumption and imparts ritual impurity even while still alive. Rabbi Yannai agrees with the statement of Rabbi Elazar, and accordingly holds that if the lower part of a person’s body until his orifices is missing or removed, the person immediately assumes the halakhic status of a corpse. Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees with Rabbi Elazar and holds that one whose lower part of his body was missing or removed has the status of a corpse only if it is removed until his navel.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַחְלוֹקֶת מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה, אֲבָל מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה אֲפִילּוּ כֹּל דְּהוּ — טְהוֹרָה. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמַּפֶּלֶת אֶת שֶׁגּוּלְגׇּלְתּוֹ אֲטוּמָה — אִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה.

Rav Pappa says: The dispute between the amora’im is with regard to a fetus that is lacking part of its body from below to above, i.e., the lower part of his body; but if it is lacking part of its body from above to below, even any amount of its skull, the woman is pure. And likewise, Rav Giddel says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of a woman who discharges a fetus whose skull is sealed, i.e., deficient, its mother is pure.

וְאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין אַפָּקוּתָא דְּדִיקְלָא — אִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה.

The Gemara cites another halakha : And Rav Giddel says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of a woman who discharges a fetus that looks like the part of a palm tree that branches out, i.e., the lower part of its body is formless while the upper part has arms and legs coming out of its shoulders like branches, its mother is pure.

אִיתְּמַר: הַמַּפֶּלֶת מִי שֶׁפָּנָיו מוּסְמָסִים, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה.

§ It was stated with regard to a woman who discharges a fetus whose face is mashed but not completely flattened, that Rabbi Yoḥanan says its mother is impure, and Reish Lakish says its mother is pure.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַמַּפֶּלֶת יָד חֲתוּכָה וְרֶגֶל חֲתוּכָה — אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה, וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא מִגּוּף אָטוּם בָּאתָה. וְאִם אִיתָא, לִיתְנֵי: שֶׁמָּא מִגּוּף אָטוּם אוֹ מִמִּי שֶׁפָּנָיו מוּסְמָסִין!

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish from a baraita : In the case of a woman who discharges a shaped hand, i.e., a hand whose fingers are discernible, or a shaped foot, its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth, as it certainly came from a full-fledged fetus, and we are not concerned that perhaps it came from a fetus with a sealed, i.e., deficient, body. And if it is so, that a fetus with a mashed face does not render its mother impure, let the baraita teach: We are not concerned that perhaps it came from a fetus with a sealed body or from one whose face is mashed.

אָמַר רַב פַּפֵּי: בְּפָנָיו מוּסְמָסִין — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּטְמֵאָה, כִּי פְּלִיגִי — בְּפָנָיו טוּחוֹת, וְאִיפְּכָא אִיתְּמַר: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה.

Rav Pappi says: In a case where its face is mashed, everyone agrees that the woman is impure. When they disagree, it is in a case where its face is completely flat, i.e., none of its features are discernible; and the opposite was stated: Rabbi Yoḥanan says that its mother is pure, and Reish Lakish says that its mother is impure.

וְלוֹתְבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵהָא! מִשּׁוּם דְּשַׁנִּי לֵיהּ: הַיְינוּ גּוּף אָטוּם, הַיְינוּ מִי שֶׁפָּנָיו טוּחוֹת.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But according to this version of the dispute, let Reish Lakish raise an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from this baraita , from which Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish according to the previous version of the dispute: If a woman who discharges a fetus whose face is flat is pure, the baraita should have stated that there is no concern that the hand or foot might have come from a fetus with a sealed body or one whose face is flat. The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish did not raise the objection, because Rabbi Yoḥanan would have responded to him that the status of a sealed body is the same as that of one whose face is flat. There is no reason to mention both types of deformities.

בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא נְפוּק לְקִרְיָיתָא, אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דַּאֲבוּהוֹן, אָמַר לָהֶם: כְּלוּם בָּא מַעֲשֶׂה לְיֶדְכֶם? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: פָּנִים טוּחוֹת בָּא לְיָדֵינוּ, וְטִימֵּאנוּהָ.

The Gemara relates: The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya went out to the villages to inspect their father’s fields. When they came back to their father, he said to them: Wasn’t any incident brought to you for a halakhic ruling? They said to him: A case of a woman who discharged a fetus with a flat face was brought to us, and we deemed her impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth.

אָמַר לָהֶם: צְאוּ וְטַהֲרוּ מָה שֶׁטִּמֵּאתֶם. מַאי דַּעְתַּיְיכוּ, לְחוּמְרָא? חוּמְרָא דְּאָתְיָא לִידֵי קוּלָּא הִיא, דְּקָיָהֲבִיתוּ לַהּ יְמֵי טוֹהַר.

Rabbi Ḥiyya said to them: Go out and deem pure that which you have deemed impure. What was your thinking when you ruled that she is impure? Did you reason that as the matter is subject to a dispute, one should rule stringently? But your ruling is a stringency that leads to a leniency, as you have given the woman thirty-three days of purity after the birth of a male, following her period of impurity, which are the minimum days of purity established in the Torah for a woman who gave birth.

אִיתְּמַר: הַמַּפֶּלֶת בְּרִיָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּים וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת, אָמַר רַב: בְּאִשָּׁה — אֵינוֹ וָלָד, בִּבְהֵמָה — אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּאִשָּׁה — וָלָד, בִּבְהֵמָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה.

§ It was stated: With regard to a woman or female animal who discharges an entity that has two backs and two spines, Rav says that in the case of the woman, her discharged fetus is not considered an offspring, as it cannot survive, and therefore the woman does not have the ritual impurity caused by childbirth, and in the case of the animal, its fetus is prohibited for consumption. And Shmuel says: In the case of a woman, the discharged fetus is considered an offspring, and the woman is impure, and in the case of an animal, the fetus is permitted for consumption.

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בִּדְרַב חָנִין בַּר אַבָּא, דְּאָמַר רַב חָנִין בַּר אַבָּא: ״הַשְּׁסוּעָה״ — בְּרִיָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rav and Shmuel disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree concerning the statement of Rav Ḥanin bar Abba, as Rav Ḥanin bar Abba said: The verse states: “Nevertheless these you shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only have the hoof cloven [ umimafrisei haparsa hashesua ]: The camel, and the hare, and the rock badger” (Deuteronomy 14:7). The apparently superfluous term hashesua is not a redundant description of the cloven hoof; it is referring to a separate entity that has two backs and two spines and therefore looks like an entirely cloven animal.

רַב אָמַר: בְּרִיָּה בְּעָלְמָא לֵיתַהּ, וְכִי אַגְמְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה — בִּמְעֵי אִמָּהּ אַגְמְרֵיהּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּרֵיהּ בְּעָלְמָא אִיתַאּ, וְכִי אַגְמְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה — בְּעָלְמָא אַגְמְרֵיהּ, אֲבָל בִּמְעֵי אִמָּהּ — שָׁרְיָא.

It is with regard to this prohibition that Rav and Shmuel disagree. Rav says that there is no such living entity in the world, and when the Merciful One taught this prohibition to Moses, he taught it to him with regard to a fetus that has two backs and two spines that is found in the womb of its mother after slaughter. And Shmuel says that there is such an entity in the world, and when the Merciful One taught this prohibition to Moses, he taught it to him with regard to a living animal in the world, but a fetus that has two backs and two spines in the womb of its mother is permitted for consumption.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַב: רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר, כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת פָּסוּל לַעֲבוֹדָה, אַלְמָא דְּחָיֵי, וְקַשְׁיָא לְרַב! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁימִי אַתְּ! שֶׁשִּׁדְרָתוֹ עֲקוּמָּה.

Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya raised an objection to Rav from a baraita : Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Any priest who has two backs and two spines is disqualified from the Temple service, as he is blemished. Evidently, an entity that has two backs and two spines can survive, and this is difficult for the opinion of Rav. Rav said to him: You are clearly Shimi, i.e., you asked well. Yet the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus is not referring to one who literally has two backs and two spines, but rather to one whose spine is crooked and therefore appears as though he has two spines. One who actually has two backs and two spines cannot survive.

מֵיתִיבִי: יֵשׁ בְּעוּבָּרִין שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין — בֶּן אַרְבָּעָה לְדַקָּה, בֶּן שְׁמֹנָה לְגַסָּה, הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְמַטָּה אָסוּר. יָצָא מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita : Among discharged animal fetuses, there are those that are forbidden in consumption, as they have the halakhic status of carcasses of unslaughtered animals. Specifically, if an animal fetus is born in the fourth month of pregnancy in the case of small domesticated animals, where the pregnancy is normally five months long, or it is born in the eighth month of pregnancy in the case of large livestock, where the pregnancy is normally nine months long, or if the miscarriage occurred from this stage of the pregnancy and earlier, i.e., if the pregnancy ended before this stage, the animal is forbidden. This excludes one that has two backs and two spines.

מַאי ״יָצָא״? לָאו יָצָא מִכְּלַל עוּבָּרִין, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְעֵי אִמָּן אֲסוּרִין?

The Gemara asks: What does the baraita mean when it states that an animal with two backs and two spines is excluded? Does it not mean that it is excluded from the category of those fetuses, which are permitted for consumption if found inside their mother’s womb, as such animals are forbidden even while they are in the wombs of their mothers? This contradicts the opinion of Shmuel, who holds that an animal fetus of that type is permitted for consumption.

רַב מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ. רַב מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: בֶּן אַרְבָּעָה לְדַקָּה, בֶּן שְׁמוֹנֶה לְגַסָּה, הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְמַטָּה — אָסוּר.

The Gemara answers: Rav explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning, and Shmuel explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning. Rav explains the baraita according to his line of reasoning, as was assumed above: If an animal fetus is born in the fourth month of pregnancy in the case of small domesticated animals, or it is born in the eighth month of pregnancy in the case of large livestock, or if it was born from this stage of the pregnancy and earlier, the animal is forbidden.

בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? כְּשֶׁיָּצָא לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם, אֲבָל בִּמְעֵי אִמּוֹ — שְׁרֵי. יָצָא מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְעֵי אִמּוֹ נָמֵי אָסוּר.

In what case is this statement said? In a case where the animal emerged into the airspace of the world; but if it was found in its mother’s womb after its mother was slaughtered, it is permitted for consumption. This excludes the case of a fetus that has two backs and two spines, as even if it is found in the womb of its mother it is prohibited.