The Babylonian Talmud

Niddah

 

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 19a

and she does not know what she has aborted.1 [In such a case,] R. Judah holds, one must be guided by the nature of most of such shapeless objects, and most such objects have the colour of one of the four kinds of blood, while the Rabbis hold that we do not say that one must be guided by the nature of most such objects.2

MISHNAH. FIVE KINDS OF BLOOD IN A WOMAN ARE UNCLEAN: RED, BLACK, A COLOUR LIKE BRIGHT CROCUS, OR LIKE EARTHY WATER OR LIKE DILUTED WINE.3 BETH SHAMMAI RULED: ALSO A COLOUR LIKE THAT OF FENUGREEK WATER OR THE JUICE OF ROASTED MEAT; BUT BETH HILLEL DECLARE THESE CLEAN. ONE THAT IS YELLOW, AKABIA B. MAHALALEL DECLARES UNCLEAN AND THE SAGES DECLARE CLEAN. R. MEIR SAID: EVEN IF IT DOES NOT CONVEY UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS AS A LIQUID.4 R. JOSE RULED: IT DOES NEITHER THE ONE NOR THE OTHER.5

WHAT COLOUR IS REGARDED AS 'RED'? ONE LIKE THE BLOOD OF A WOUND.4 'BLACK'? LIKE THE SEDIMENT OF INK; IF IT IS DARKER IT IS UNCLEAN AND IF LIGHTER IT IS CLEAN. BRIGHT CROCUS COLOUR'? LIKE THE BRIGHTEST SHADE IN IT.4 'A COLOUR LIKE EARTHY WATER'? EARTH FROM THE VALLEY OF BETH KEREM6 OVER WHICH WATER IS MADE TO FLOAT. 'ONE LIKE DILUTED WINE'? TWO PARTS OF WATER AND ONE OF WINE OF THE WINE OF SHARON.

GEMARA. Whence is it deduced that there is clean discharge of blood in a woman? Is it not possible that all blood that issues from her is unclean? - R. Hama b. Joseph citing R. Oshaia7 replied: Scripture says, If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood,8 which implies between clean blood and unclean blood. But then, would the expression 'between a leprous stroke and a leprous stroke'8 also mean between an unclean stroke and a clean one? And should you reply: This is so indeed, [it could be retorted:] Is there at all a leprous stroke that is clean? And should you reply, 'It is all turned white; he is clean',9 [it could be retorted:] That is called a white scurf!10 Consequently it must mean: Between human leprosy and the leprosy of houses and the leprosy of garments, all of which are unclean; why then should it not be said heres also that the distinction implied is that between the blood of a menstruant and that of one suffering from gonorrhoea both of which are unclean?11 - What a comparison! There12 [the controversy13 is well justified14 since] a difference of opinion might arise in the case of human leprosy on the lines of that between R. Joshua and the Rabbis. For we have learnt: If the bright spot15 preceded the white hair, he16 is unclean; if the reverse was the case, he is clean. If [the order of appearance is] a matter of doubt he is unclean; but R. Joshua said: It is as though darkened,17 and in connection with this Rabbah explained: It is as though [the spot] darkened18 and he is therefore clean.19 As regards leprosy in houses the point at issue20 may be the one between R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon and the Rabbis. For we have learnt: R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon ruled: A house never becomes unclean unless the leprosy appears in the size of two beans on two stones,21 in two walls,21 at a corner,22 and it must be two beans in length and one bean in breadth.23 What is R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon's reason? - It is written24 wall25 and it is also written walls,26 now what wall is it that is like two walls? Admit that that is a corner.27 As regards leprosy in garments the divergence of opinion28 may be the one between R. Jonathan b. Abtolemos and the Rabbis. For it was taught: R. Jonathan29 b. Abtolemos stated, Whence is it deduced that leprosy that is spread over entire garments is clean? Since karahath30 and gabahath31 are mentioned in respect of garments, and karahath32 and gabahath33 are also mentioned in the case of human beings, as in the latter case if the leprosy spread over the whole body, he is clean so also in the former case if it spread over the whole garment it is clean.34 Here,35 however, if clean blood does not exist, what could be the point at issue between them?36 But whence is it inferred that these kinds of blood are clean and the others are unclean?37 - R. Abbahu replied: Since Scripture says, And the Moabites saw the water as red as blood,38 which indicates that blood is red.39 Might it not be suggested that only red blood40 is unclean but no other?41 - R. Abbahu replied: Scripture says; Her blood,42 Her blood43 implying four kinds.44 But have we not learnt, FIVE KINDS? - R. Hanina replied: Black blood is really red [blood] that had deteriorated.45 So it was also taught: Black blood is like the sediment of ink; if it is dark it is unclean, and if lighter, even though it has the colour of stibium, it is clean. And black blood is not black originally. It46 assumes the black colour only after it is discharged, like the blood of a wound which becomes black after it had been discharged from it.

BETH SHAMMAI RULED: ALSO A COLOUR LIKE THAT OF FENUGREEK. But do not Beth Shammai uphold the deduction from, Her blood,42 her blood43 which imply four kinds?44 - If you wish I may reply that they do not uphold it - And if you prefer I may reply that they do uphold it, but47 did not R. Hanina explain, 'Black blood is really red [blood] that had deteriorated'?48 Well, here also49 it may be explained that [the blood]50 had merely deteriorated.

BUT BETH HILLEL DECLARE THESE CLEAN. Is not this ruling identical with that of the first Tanna?51 - The practical difference between them is

____________________
(1) The object having been lost.
(2) Because they do not agree that most such objects have one or other of the colours of the unclean kinds of blood. R. Johanan, by his limitation to three (supra 18a) of the cases in which the majority rule is given the force of a certainty, has implicitly indicated that, in the case dealt with by R. Judah, the uncleanness of the woman, which is entirely dependent on the majority rule, is not one of certainty but one of a doubtful nature. Consequently terumah that had been touched by the woman may not be burnt.
(3) Mazug, wine mixed with water.
(4) This is explained in the Gemara infra.
(5) Lit., 'neither so nor so'.
(6) V. Nid. III, 4.
(7) MS.M., 'Joshua'.
(8) Deut. XVII, 8.
(9) Lev. XIII, 13.
(10) Not a leprous stroke.
(11) An objection against R. Oshaia's reply.
(12) In the case of leprosy.
(13) Implied in Deut. XVII, 8.
(14) Though all leprosy is unclean.
(15) In leprosy. Cf. Lev. XIII, 2-4.
(16) The man affected.
(17) Neg. IV, II.
(18) Cf. If the plague be dim (or dark) . . . then the priest shall pronounce him clean (Lev. XIII, 6).
(19) The dispute implied in Deut. XVII, 8, may consequently be analogous to the one between R. Joshua and the Rabbis.
(20) Implied in Deut. XVII, 8.
(21) The size of one bean on each.
(22) Where the walls meet.
(23) Neg. Xli, 3; so that each stone is covered by leprosy of the size of one bean by one bean, which is the minimum required for effecting uncleanness.
(24) In respect of leprosy.
(25) Lev. XIV, 37.
(26) Ibid.
(27) The divergence of view implied in Deut. XVII, 8, may consequently be one analogous to that between R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon and the Rabbis.
(28) Referred to in Deut. XVII, 8.
(29) Var. lec. 'Nathan' (v. Zeb. 49b).
(30) E.V., within, Lev. XIII, 55.
(31) E.V., without, ibid.
(32) E.V., bald head, ibid. 42.
(33) E.V. bold forehead, ibid.
(34) Sanh. 87b, Zeb. 44b. The dispute implied in Deut. XVII, 8, may consequently be the one between R. Jonathan b. Abtolemos and the Rabbis.
(35) In the case of a divergence of view in respect of blood.
(36) The authorities in dispute regarding blood referred to in Deut. XVII, 8. Consequently it must be conceded that clean blood also exists.
(37) Cf. our Mishnah.
(38) II Kings III, 22.
(39) As red is the usual colour of blood, all blood which has one of the five colours enumerated in our Mishnah (all of which are shades of red) is unclean.
(40) But if so, why does our Mishnah declare the others also to be unclean?
(41) One like that of a wound.
(42) Dameha, the plural form, Lev. Xli, 7.
(43) Ibid. XX, 18 (cf. prev. n.).
(44) Twice two (cf. prev. two notes).
(45) The two colours may, therefore, be treated as one.
(46) Being originally red.
(47) As to the objection from the limitation of the number to five.
(48) Supra. Of course he did.
(49) Blood of the colour of fenugreek.
(50) Being originally red.
(51) In the first clause of our Mishnah.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 19b

the question of suspense.1

ONE THAT IS YELLOW, AKABIA B. MAHALALEL DECLARES UNCLEAN. But does not Akabia uphold the deduction from 'Her blood, her blood', which imply four kinds?2 - If you wish I may reply: He does not uphold it. And if you prefer I may reply: He does uphold it; but did not R. Hanina explain, 'Black blood is really red [blood] that had deteriorated'? Well, here also it may be explained that [the blood] had merely deteriorated.2

AND THE SAGES DECLARE IT CLEAN. Is not this ruling identical with that of the first Tanna?3 - The practical difference between them is the question of suspense.4

R. MEIR SAID: EVEN IF IT DOES NOT CONVEY UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN etc. R. Johanan stated: R. Meir took up5 the line of Akabia b. Mahalalel and declared it6 unclean;7 and it is this that he in effect said to the Rabbis, 'Granted that where a woman finds a yellow bloodstain on her garment you do not regard her as unclean;8 where she observed a discharge of yellow blood from her body9 she must be deemed unclean'. If so, instead of saying, EVEN IF IT DOES NOT CONVEY UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS AS A LIQUID, should he not have said 'on account of her observation'?10 - Rather, it is this that he in effect said to them, 'Granted that where the woman observed yellow blood at the outset you do not11 regard her as unclean;12 where she observed first red blood13 and then a yellow discharge the latter also must be deemed unclean,14 since it is something like the liquids15 of a zab or a zabah'.16 And the Rabbis?17 - [An unclean liquid must be] similar to spittle; as spittle is formed in globules when it is discharged so must any other unclean liquid be one that is formed in globules when it is discharged; that liquid18 is therefore excluded since it is not formed in globules when discharged. If so, do not the Rabbis indeed give R. Meir a most satisfactory answer?19 - It is rather this that he said to them in effect: 'It18 should have the status of a liquid in respect of rendering seed susceptible to uncleanness'.20 And the Rabbis?21 - [For such a purpose] it is necessary that it shall be like the blood of the slain,22 which is not the case here. If so, did not the Rabbis indeed answer R. Meir well?19 - It is rather this that he in effect said to them: 'Deduce this23 by gezera shawah;24 here25 it is written, Thy shoots26 are a park of pomegranates27 and elsewhere it is written, And sendeth28 water upon the fields.29 And the Rabbis?30 A man may infer a ruling a minori ad majus on his own but he may not infer on his own one that is derived from a gezera shawah.31

R. JOSE RULED: IT DOES NEITHER THE ONE NOR THE OTHER etc. Is not this ruling identical with that of the first Tanna?32 - It is this that we were informed: Who is the first Tanna? R. Jose; for he who repeats a thing in the name of him who said it brings deliverance into the world.33

WHAT COLOUR IS REGARDED AS RED? ONE LIKE THE BLOOD OF A WOUND. What is meant by LIKE THE BLOOD OF A WOUND? - Rab Judah citing Samuel replied: Like the blood of a slaughtered ox.34 Why then was it not stated, 'Like the blood of slaughtering'? - If it had been stated, 'Like the blood of slaughtering' it might have been presumed to mean like the blood during the entire process of slaughtering,35 hence we were told, LIKE THE BLOOD OF A WOUND, meaning like that caused by the first stroke of the knife. 'Ulla replied:36 Like the blood of [a wound inflicted on] a live bird. The question was raised: Does 'live'37 exclude a slaughtered bird or does it possibly exclude an emaciated one? - This is undecided.38 Ze'iri citing R. Hanina replied:36 Like the blood of a head louse. An objection was raised: If she39 killed a louse she may attribute the stain to it.40 Does not this refer to a louse of any part of the body? - No, to one of her head. Ammi of Wardina41 citing R. Abbahu replied:36 Like the blood of the little finger of the hand that was wounded and healed and wounded again. Furthermore, it does not mean that of any person but only that of a young unmarried man. And up to what age? - Up to that of twenty.

An objection was raised: She39 may attribute it to her son42 or to her husband.42 [Now the attribution] to her son is quite reasonable since it is possible [that he was unmarried],43 but how is this possible in the case of her husband?44 - R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: Where, for instance, the woman entered the bridal chamber but had no intercourse.45 R. Nahman replied:46 Like the blood of the arteries.47

An objection was raised: It once happened that R. Meir attributed it48

____________________
(1) I.e., whether blood of a colour other than those of the five enumerated is (a) absolutely clean or (b) only doubtfully so. Beth Hillel are in agreement with (a) and the first Tanna agrees with (b).
(2) Cf. nn. on previous paragraph but one.
(3) In the first clause of our Mishnah.
(4) Cf. prev. n. but one mut. mut.
(5) Lit., 'descended'.
(6) A yellow discharge.
(7) As menstrual blood.
(8) Being yellow (an unusual colour for blood) it might well be presumed to have originated from some source other than her body.
(9) So that its origin is certain.
(10) Of an actual discharge.
(11) Despite the observation.
(12) Because yellow is not the colour of blood; UNCLEANNESS AS A BLOODSTAIN meaning: As other blood whose stain conveys uncleanness.
(13) Which causes her to be definitely unclean.
(14) Sc. in respect of conveying uncleanness to man or object that comes in contact with it.
(15) Spittle, for instance.
(16) Which, though they are no blood, convey uncleanness.
(17) How, in view of this argument, could they maintain that a yellow discharge is clean in all circumstances?
(18) A yellow discharge.
(19) How then could R. Meir still maintain his view?
(20) Cf. Lev. XI, 38.
(21) Cf. supra n. 3.
(22) Num. XXIII, 24, sc. blood on which life depends (cf. Pes. 16a).
(23) That a yellow discharge renders seed susceptible to uncleanness.
(24) V. Glos.
(25) In respect of menstrual discharges.
(26) Shelahayik (rt. שלח) euphemism (cf. prev. n.).
(27) Cant. IV, 13.
(28) Wesholeah (rt. שלח).
(29) Job V, 10. Analogy between the two words of the same root: As the water referred to in Job renders seed susceptible to uncleanness so does a woman's discharge alluded to in Cant.
(30) How can they maintain their view in opposition to the gezera shawah?
(31) Which must be traditional if it is to be valid. As R. Meir drew the analogy on his own the Rabbis could well disregard it.
(32) In the first clause of our Mishnah. Why then the repetition?
(33) Cf. Ab. VI, 6.
(34) The true colour of red. Cf. Yoma 56b.
(35) During which the colours change.
(36) To the question supra, what is meant by LIKE THE BLOOD OF A WOUND?
(37) Heb. hai (fem. haiyah) may mean both 'live' and 'sound', 'healthy'.
(38) Teku.
(39) A woman who discovered a bloodstain.
(40) Infra 58b.
(41) Place name (cf. 'Er. 49a). Wardina or Barada on the eastern bank of the Tigris was two hours distance from the north of Bagdad (cf. 'Er. (Sonc. ed.) p. 340, n. 11). Aliter: 'The fragrant (werad = rose) Ammi' (cf. Rashi).
(42) If either of them was afflicted with a wound. Infra 58b.
(43) And the blood of his wound satisfies, therefore, all the conditions laid down by R. Abbahu.
(44) Who must be a married man (cf. prev. n. mut. mut.).
(45) So that the blood is in reality that of an unmarried man (cf. prev. n. but one).
(46) To the question, supra, what is meant by 'LIKE THE BLOOD OF A WOUND'?
(47) Hakazah, lit,, 'blood letting'.
(48) A stain.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 20a

to collyrium1 and Rabbi attributed it to the sap of a sycamore.2 Now did not these cases3 deal with the question of red blood?4 - No; with that of other kinds of blood.

Amemar and Mar Zutra and R. Ashi once sat before a cupper,5 and when the first cupping-horn was taken off Amemar he saw it and said to the others, 'The red6 of which we have learnt7 is a shade like this'. When the second one was taken off from him, he said to them, 'This has a different shade'. 'One like myself', observed R. Ashi, 'Who does not know the difference between the one and the other must not act as an examiner of blood'.

'BLACK? LIKE THE SEDIMENT [OF INK]. Rabbah son of R. Huna stated: The HERETH8 of which the Rabbis spoke7 is ink. So it was also taught: Black9 is a colour like hereth and the 'black' of which the Rabbis spoke9 is the colour of ink. Then why was it not directly stated, 'Ink'? - If 'ink' had been stated, it might have been presumed to refer to the watery part of the ink,10 hence we were informed that the colour is like that of the sediment of the ink. The question was raised: Is the reference to liquid, or to dry ink? - Come and hear of [the practice of] R. Ammi who used to split a grain of dry ink and with its aid performed the necessary examination.

Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: [If a woman's discharge has a colour] like that of black wax, black ink or a black grape she is unclean; and it is this that was meant by what we learnt: IF IT IS DARKER IT IS UNCLEAN.

R. Eleazar ruled: [A discharge that has a colour] like that of a black olive, pitch or a raven is clean; and it is this that was alluded to in what we have learnt: IF LIGHTER IT IS CLEAN.

'Ulla explained:11 One like a Siwa12 cloak. 'Ulla once visited Pumbeditha when he noticed an Arab merchant who was wearing a black cloak. 'The black of which we have learnt',13 he told them, 'is a colour like this'. They pulled it off him in bits14 and paid him for it four hundred zuz.

R. Johanan explained:11 [One of the colour of] those court15 clothes that are imported from courtiers beyond the sea. This then implies that such clothes are black, but did not R. Jannai address the following request to his sons: 'My children, do not bury me either in black shrouds or white shrouds; "either in black", peradventure I may be worthy [of a place in paradise] and I would be like a mourner among bridegrooms;16 "or in white", peradventure I might not be worthy and would be like a bridegroom among mourners;17 but [bury me] only in court15 clothes that are imported from countries beyond the sea', which clearly proves, does it not, that these are not black?18 - This is no difficulty, the latter19 referring to wrappers,20 while the former21 refers to clothes worn22 at table.23

Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: And all these24 must be tested only on a white strip of cloth. R. Isaac b. Abudemi ruled: But black blood may be tested on a red strip of cloth. R. Jeremiah of Difti observed: There is really no difference of opinion between them,25 since the latter speaks only of black blood while the former refers to the other kinds of blood. R. Ashi demurred: If so, why did not Samuel say, 'With the exception of black'? Rather, said R. Ashi, they26 differ on the very question of black itself.

'Ulla ruled: In the case of all these27 if the discharge is darker28 It is unclean and if it is lighter28 it is clean, as is the case with black.29 Then why did it mention only black? - As it might have been presumed that, since R. Hanina stated, 'Black [blood] is really red blood that had deteriorated', it should, therefore, be unclean even if it is lighter, hence we were informed [that IF LIGHTER IT IS CLEAN].

R. Ammi b. Abba ruled: In the case of all these27 if the discharge is darker28 it is unclean and if it is lighter it is also unclean, the only exception being black.30 What then31 was the use of the standard shade laid down by the Rabbis? - To exclude32 one that was extremely faint.33 There are others who read: Rami b. Abba ruled: In the case of all these34 if the discharge is darker35 it is clean and if it is lighter it is also clean, the only exception being black;30 and it is in this case that the Rabbinical standard is of use.

Bar Kappara ruled: In the case of all these34 if the discharge is darker it is unclean and if lighter it is clean, the exception being [the colour of] diluted wine in which a darker shade is clean and a lighter one is also clean. Bar Kappara was shown a lighter shade36 and he declared it clean, and when he was shown a darker shade36 he also declared it clean. 'How great is the man', exclaimed R. Hanina, 'who in practice acts37 in agreement with his view.

A COLOUR LIKE BRIGHT CROCUS. A Tanna taught: Fresh crocus and not dry one. One [Baraitha] taught: Like the lower leaf38 but not like the upper one, and another [Baraitha] taught: Like the upper leaf but not like the lower one, while a third [Baraitha] taught: Like the upper leaf and much more so like the lower one, and a fourth [Baraitha] taught: Like the lower leaf and much more so like the upper one!39 - Abaye replied: The crocus has three rows of leaves40 and there are three leaves in each row; keep41 to the middle row42 and the middle leaf of that row.43 When they came before R. Abbahu he told them: What we learnt [about the colour of the crocus refers to such as are still] attached to their clods.44

OR LIKE EARTHY WATER. Our Rabbis taught: Like earthy water - one brings fertile soil from the valley of Beth Kerem over which he causes water to float; so R. Meir. R. Judah45 said: From the valley of Jotapata.46 R. Jose said: From the valley of Sikni.47 R. Simeon said: Also from the valley of Gennesaret48 and similar soil. Another [Baraitha] taught: And like earthy water - one brings fertile soil from the valley of Beth Kerem and over it he causes water to float until it forms a layer as thin as the husk of garlic; and no quantity has been prescribed for the water since none has been prescribed for the earth.49 The water, furthermore, is not to be examined when it is clean but when turbid. If they become clear they must be stirred up again;50 and when they are stirred one must not do it with the hand but with a vessel. The question was raised: [Does the expression,] 'One must not do it with the hand but with a vessel' mean that a man must not put it in his hand and stir it in it but that where it is in a vessel it is quite proper for him to stir it with his hand, or is it possible that the meaning is that one must not stir it with his hand51 but with an instrument?52 - Come and hear: When he examines it53 he must do it in a cup only.54 But does not the question yet remain: If the examination must be in a cup, wherewith must the stirring be done? - This is undecided.55

When they came before Rabba b. Abbuha he told them: What we learnt [about the earth refers to such as is] in its own place.56

R. Hanina used to break up a piece of potter's clay and thereby performed the examination. R. Ishmael son of R. Jose cursed with croup any other person who adopts such a method

____________________
(1) ** a reddish eyesalve, which the woman had handled that day.
(2) Infra 58b, Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
(3) From which it follows that colours like that of collyrium or sycamore sap that are not intensely red are regarded as similar to that of menstrual blood.
(4) But, if so, how could the authorities (supra 19b) maintain that menstrual blood is intensely red like that, for instance, of a young unmarried man?
(5) For an operation of blood drawing with cupping horns.
(6) In respect of menstrual blood.
(7) In our Mishnah.
(8) Rendered in our Mishnah SEDIMENT OF INK.
(9) In respect of a woman's discharge.
(10) I.e., the upper part above the sediment. This is not so black as the lower part.
(11) The unclean black in our Mishnah.
(12) A place where dark clothes were manufactured. Aliter: Dirty-dark.
(13) In our Mishnah.
(14) To be preserved as models of the standard black.
(15) Aliter: bathing attendants.
(16) The righteous who are clad in white.
(17) The wicked in Gehenna.
(18) Is not this then contradictory to R. Johanan's view?
(19) Spoken of by R. Jannai.
(20) Which are red.
(21) R. Johanan's statement.
(22) Or 'cloths used'.
(23) Which are black.
(24) Five kinds of blood (v. our Mishnah).
(25) Samuel and R. Isaac b. Abudemi.
(26) Samuel and R. Isaac b. Abudemi.
(27) Five kinds of blood (v. our Mishnah).
(28) Than the standard shade.
(29) Concerning which the limitations are specifically laid down in our Mishnah.
(30) Which IF LIGHTER IT IS CLEAN.
(31) In the case of the colours other than black which, as has just been stated, not only a darker, but also a lighter shade is unclean.
(32) From uncleanness.
(33) Lit., 'lighter of lighter'. Such a shade is clean.
(34) Five kinds of blood (v. our Mishnah).
(35) Than the standard shade.
(36) Of a discharge of the colour of diluted wine.
(37) So Maharsha. Cur. edd., 'whose heart'.
(38) Of the crocus.
(39) How are the four contradictory statements to be reconciled?
(40) One below the other.
(41) As the most correct standard for the blood test.
(42) Which has the 'lower leaf' as compared with the top row (first Baraitha) and the 'upper leaf' as compared with the lowest row (second Baraitha). V. foll. n.
(43) Though the other leaves in that row may also be taken as the standard. The middle leaf is the 'lower one' as compared with the one above it (third Baraitha) and the 'upper one' as compared with the one below it (fourth Baraitha).
(44) Of earth. Their colour then is much brighter than that of the detached plant which may not be used as a standard.
(45) So MS.M. and Elijah Wilna. Cur. edd., 'Akiba'.
(46) A fortress in Galilee.
(47) Or Siknin, on the north of Jotapata.
(48) In Lower Galilee on the banks of the lake of the same name.
(49) The more the earth the more the water and vice versa.
(50) To mix up the earth with it.
(51) Even when it is in a vessel.
(52) The Heb. Keli may bear both significations.
(53) The earthy water.
(54) Which proves that no examination may be performed with the water and the earth in one's hand.
(55) Teku (v. Glos.).
(56) Exported earth changes its colour.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 20b

for R. Hanina was wise enough;1 all others are not so wise. R. Johanan remarked: The wisdom of R. Hanina caused me not to examine any blood, for when I declared any unclean he declared it clean and when I declared it clean he declared it unclean. R. Eleazar remarked: R. Hanina's modesty is the cause of my examining blood. [For I felt] if R. Hanina who was modest allowed himself to be involved in doubt and examined blood, should not I examine it? R. Zera remarked: The Babylonian coinage was the cause of my refusing to examine blood; for I thought: If I do not understand the coinage system would I understand the nature of blood? This then implies that capability to examine blood depends on an understanding of the coinage; but did not Rabbah in fact understand the coinage system and yet did not understand the qualities of blood? - He was really drawing an inference a minori ad majus: If Rabbah who understood the coinage system refused to examine blood, should I2 examine it?

'Ulla once visited Pumbeditha3 and when some blood was brought to him for examination he refused to see it. If, he said, R. Eleazar who was the supreme authority in the Land of Israel4 refused to see blood whenever he visited the place of R. Judah, should I see it?5 And why was he described as the supreme authority in the Land of Israel? - Because a woman once brought some blood before R. Eleazar when R. Ammi sat in his presence. Having smelt it he6 told her, 'This is blood of lust'.7 After she went out R. Ammi joined her and she told him, 'My husband was away on a journey but I felt an intense longing for him'. Thereupon he8 applied to him6 the text, The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear Him.9

Ifra Hormiz,10 the mother of King Shapur, once sent some blood to Raba when R. Obadiah was sitting in his presence. Having smelt it he said to him, 'This is blood of lust'.7 'Come and see', she remarked to her11 son, 'how wise the Jews are'. 'It is quite possible', he replied, 'that he12 hit upon it like a blind man on a window'. Thereupon she sent to him12 sixty different kinds of blood and he identified them all but the last one which was lice blood with which he was not acquainted. Luckily,13 however, he sent her14 a comb that exterminates lice. 'O, you Jews', she exclaimed, you seem to live in the inner chamber of one's heart'.15

Rab Judah stated: 'At first I used to examine blood, but since the mother of my son Isaac told me, "We do not bring the first drop to the Rabbis because it is dirty", I refuse to see it.16 [An examination, however, for the purpose of distinguishing] between the blood of uncleanness and cleanness17 I certainly do perform'.18

Yaltha19 once brought some blood to Rabbah b. Bar Hana who informed her that it was unclean. She then took it to R. Isaac the son of Rab Judah who told her that it was clean. But how could he act in this manner, seeing that is was taught: If a Sage declared [aught] unclean another Sage20 may not declare it clean; if he forbade anything his colleague may not permit it?21 - At first he22 informed her indeed that it was unclean,23 but when she told him that on every other occasion he24 declared such blood as clean, but that on the last occasion he had a pain in his eye, he gave her his ruling that it was clean. But are women believed in such circumstances? - Yes, and so it was also taught: A woman25 is believed when she says, 'I saw a kind of blood like this one26 but I have lost it.'27

The question was raised: What is the law [where a woman says], A kind of blood like this28 has been declared clean by such and such a Sage?29 - Come and hear: A woman25 is believed when she says, 'I saw a kind of blood like this one26 but I have lost it.'30 But is not that case31 different, since the blood is not available?32 - Come and hear the case of Yaltha: She once brought some blood to Rabbah b. Bar Hana who informed her that it was unclean. She then took it33 to R. Isaac the son of Rab Judah who told her that it was clean. But how could he act in this manner, seeing that it was taught: If a Sage declared [a person or an article] unclean no other Sage34 may declare it clean etc. And we explained that at first he22 informed her indeed that it was unclean, but when she told him that on every other occasion he24 declared such blood as clean but that on that day he had a pain in his eye, he changed his view and gave her his ruling that it was clean.35 Now this proves quite clearly, does it not, that a woman is believed? - R. Isaac b. Judah may have relied on his own traditions and experience.36

Rabbi once examined some blood at night and declared it unclean but when he examined it in the day time he declared it clean. Then he waited a while and again declared it unclean. 'Woe to me', he said, 'I may have made a mistake'.37 'I may have made a mistake'! Has he not in fact made a mistake, seeing that it was taught: A Sage must not say,38 'If it had been moist it would undoubtedly have been unclean'; he must rather say, 'The judge must be guided only by what his eyes see'? - At first39 he presumed it to be definitely unclean, but when he observed in the morning that its colour had changed40 he said41 that it was undoubtedly clean but that at night it could not be seen properly. When, however, he observed that the colour had changed again42 he said, 'It must be unclean blood but the colour is steadily fading away.

Rabbi examined blood in the light of a lamp. R. Ishmael son of R. Joseph43 examined it even on a cloudy day between the pillars.44 R. Ammi b. Samuel ruled: All kinds of blood must be examined only between the sunshine and the shade. R. Nahman citing Rabbah b. Abbuha ruled: The examination may be performed in the sunshine under the shadow of one's hand.45 'ONE LIKE DILUTED WINE'? TWO PARTS etc. A Tanna taught:

____________________
(1) And was, therefore, capable of using the method.
(2) Who do not understand the coinage system.
(3) Which was under the jurisdiction of Rab Judah (cf. Sanh. 17b).
(4) V. Git. 19b.
(5) Cf. prev. n.
(6) R. Eleazar.
(7) A discharge due to sexual desire.
(8) R. Ammi.
(9) Ps. XXV, 14.
(10) A gentile woman who observed some of the Jewish ritual (cf. also Zeb. 116b).
(11) So Emden, Cur. edd. 'his'.
(12) Raba.
(13) Lit., 'the matter came to assistance'.
(14) As a gift.
(15) Nothing is hidden from them.
(16) Because the colour changes and though the second drop may be one of clean blood it could not establish a woman's cleanness if the first drop, which she did not present for examination, was one of unclean blood.
(17) At the end of the period of cleanness after a childbirth which is the fortieth day for a male and the eightieth for a female (cf. Lev. XII, 1-5).
(18) The blood in such circumstances being free from dirt a woman submits for examination the first drop she sees.
(19) R. Nahman's wife.
(20) Lit,, 'his colleague'.
(21) Hul. 44b.
(22) R. Isaac.
(23) Out of respect for Rabbah b. Bar Hana (v. infra).
(24) Rabbah.
(25) Who does not submit the original blood.
(26) Which she produces.
(27) And if the blood she submits is clean she may be declared clean.
(28) Which a friend of hers showed her.
(29) May her judgment, it is asked, on the exact similarity of the two kinds be relied upon by her friend or not.
(30) Which proves that a woman's judgment in such cases (cf. prev. n.) is relied upon.
(31) Just cited.
(32) Lit., 'it is not before her'.
(33) So Bah. Cur. edd. omit the last four words.
(34) Lit., 'his colleagues'.
(35) Supra.
(36) Not on Yaltha's evidence. The reason why he at first declared the blood as unclean was merely to show his respect to Rabbah b. Bar Hana.
(37) In finally declaring the blood unclean, since the colour now was of a clean kind.
(38) When examining a dry stain.
(39) At the night examination.
(40) It assumed a lighter shade.
(41) So Emden. Cur. edd. in parenthesis 'to him'.
(42) To a still lighter shade,
(43) MS.M. 'Jose'.
(44) Of the schoolhouse where the light was never too bright.
(45) Held between the sun and the object.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 21a

Sharon wine1 [diluted] is regarded2 as the Carmel wine in its natural undiluted state when it is new.3 R. Isaac b. Abudemi ruled: All these4 must be examined only in a plain Tiberian cup.5 What is the reason? - Abaye replied: Generally6 a cup that contains a log is made of a maneh7 and one that contains two log is made of two hundred zuz, but the plain Tiberian cup, even if it contains two log, is made of one maneh, and since it is so thin [the colour of the wine can] be recognized better [than in any other kind of cup].

CHAPTER 3

MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN ABORTED A SHAPELESS OBJECT,8 IF THERE WAS BLOOD WITH IT, SHE IS UNCLEAN,9 OTHERWISE SHE IS CLEAN10 . R. JUDAH RULED: IN EITHER CASE SHE IS UNCLEAN.11

IF A WOMAN ABORTED AN OBJECT THAT WAS LIKE A RIND, LIKE A HAIR, LIKE EARTH, LIKE RED FLIES, LET HER PUT IT IN WATER AND IF IT DISSOLVES12 SHE IS UNCLEAN,9 BUT IF IT DOES NOT SHE IS CLEAN.13

IF AN ABORTION WAS IN THE SHAPE OF FISHES, LOCUSTS, OR ANY FORBIDDEN ANIMALS OR CREEPING THINGS, IF THERE WAS BLOOD WITH THEM SHE IS UNCLEAN,9 OTHERWISE SHE IS CLEAN.13

IF AN ABORTION HAD THE SHAPE OF A BEAST, A WILD ANIMAL OR A BIRD, WHETHER CLEAN OR UNCLEAN,14 IF IT WAS A MALE SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND SUBSEQUENT CLEANNESS FOR THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED] FOR A MALE,15 AND IF IT WAS A FEMALE SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND SUBSEQUENT CLEANNESS FOR THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED] FOR A FEMALE,16 BUT IF THE SEX IS UNKNOWN SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND SUBSEQUENT CLEANNESS FOR THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED] FOR BOTH MALE AND FEMALE;17 SO R. MEIR. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: ANYTHING THAT HAS NOT THE SHAPE OF A HUMAN BEING CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A HUMAN CHILD.

GEMARA. Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: R. Judah declared the woman18 unclean only where the object had the colour of one of the four kinds of blood,19 but if it had that of any of the other kinds of blood20 she is clean.21 R. Johanan, however, stated: [If the object had the colour] of one of the four kinds of blood22 all23 agree that the woman is unclean and if it had the colour of any of the other kinds of blood all24 agree that she is clean; they25 differ only in the case where she aborted something and she does not know what she aborted.26 [In such a case.] R. Judah holds, one must be guided by the nature of most of shapeless objects, and most shapeless objects have the colour of one of the four kinds of blood, while the Rabbis hold that we do not say, 'most shapeless objects have the colour of one of the four kinds of blood'. But is this correct?27 Surely when R. Hoshaia arrived from Nehardea he came [to the schoolhouse] and brought with him a Baraitha: If a woman aborted a shapeless object that was red, black, green or white,28 if there was blood with it, she is unclean, otherwise she is clean. R. Judah ruled: In either case she is unclean. Now does not this present a difficulty against Samuel in one respect and against R. Johanan in two respects? 'Against Samuel in one respect, since Samuel stated, 'R. Judah declared the woman unclean only where the shapeless object had the colour of one of the four kinds of blood' whereas here 'green and white'29 were mentioned and R. Judah nevertheless disagrees.30 And were you to reply that R. Judah differs only in respect of red and black but not in that of green or white [the question would arise:] For whose benefit then was green and white mentioned? If it be suggested: For that of the Rabbis,31 [it could be retorted:] Since the Rabbis declared the woman clean even in the case of red and black blood,32 was it any longer necessary to state that the same law applies also to green and white?29 Must it not then be conceded that these33 were mentioned for the benefit of R. Judah34 who, it thus follows, does differ.35 Furthermore, according to R. Johanan36 who also stated, '[If it had the colour] of one of the four kinds of blood all agree that she is unclean', [the additional difficulty arises:] Were not red and black also mentioned and the Rabbis nevertheless differ.37 And should you reply that the Rabbis differ only in regard to green and white but not in that of red and black [the difficulty would arise:] For whose benefit, then, were red and black mentioned? If it be suggested: For that of R. Judah [it could be retorted:] Since green and white are regarded as unclean, was it at all necessary to mention red and black? Must it not then be conceded that these were mentioned for the benefit of the Rabbis who, it follows, do differ?37 - Rather, explained R. Nahman b. Isaac: The point at issue between them38 is the question whether it is possible for the uterus39 to open40 without bleeding.41 They38 thus differ on the same principle as that on which the following Tannas differ. For it was taught: If a woman was in hard labour for two days42 and on the third she aborted and43 does not know what she had aborted44

____________________
(1) Composed of one part of wine and two parts of water (cf. our Mishnah).
(2) In respect of its colour.
(3) Lit., 'new and not old'. According to an interpretation of Maimonides and Semag (cf. Maharsha) the Sharon wine, when used in an examination of blood, must first be new and undiluted and then mixed expressly for the purpose of the examination with two parts of water.
(4) Kinds of wine.
(5) Which is made of thin and transparent glass.
(6) Lit., 'of all the world'.
(7) The weight of one hundred zuz.
(8) Lit., 'piece'.
(9) As a menstruant.
(10) Because, in the absence of blood, she cannot be regarded as a menstruant, and, since a shapeless object is no proper birth, she cannot be regarded as a woman in childbirth.
(11) This is explained in the Gemara infra.
(12) Into liquid blood.
(13) Cf. supra n. 3 mut. mut.
(14) Cf. Lev. XI.
(15) Cf. Lev. XII, 2-4.
(16) Cf. ibid. 5.
(17) Sc. she is subject to the restrictions of both: The period of her uncleanness is fourteen days (as for a female) and not seven (as for a male) while the subsequent period of her cleanness terminates on the fortieth day (as for a male) and not on the eightieth (as for a female).
(18) Who ABORTED A SHAPELESS OBJECT.
(19) Described in the Mishnah supra 19a as unclean. (Black and red which in the Mishnah are regarded as two different colours and, therefore, bring the total number of unclean colours to five, are here regarded as one colour since the former is but a deterioration of the latter). R. Judah holds that the shapeless object is but a piece of clotted blood. Hence, if its colour is that of unclean blood, the woman, though not in childbirth, must be deemed unclean as a menstruant.
(20) White or green, for instance.
(21) Since she is neither in childbirth nor a menstruant.
(22) Cf. supra n. 2.
(23) Even the Rabbis.
(24) Even R. Judah.
(25) The Rabbis and R. Judah (cf. prev. two nn.).
(26) The object having been lost.
(27) Lit., 'I am not'.
(28) The first two are of the unclean colours while the last two are among the clean ones (cf. supra 19a).
(29) Which are not of the four unclean kinds.
(30) With the Rabbis, maintaining that the woman is unclean.
(31) I.e., to indicate that the Rabbis regard the woman in such cases as clean.
(32) Which are among the four unclean colours.
(33) Green and white.
(34) Viz., that even with such colours R. Judah regards the woman as unclean.
(35) From the Rabbis. How then could Samuel maintain that in such cases R. Judah regards the woman as clean?
(36) Against whom, since he stated that in the case of the other kinds of blood 'all agree that she is clean', the difficulty just pointed out against Samuel equally applies.
(37) From R. Judah and declare it clean.
(38) R. Judah and the Rabbis.
(39) Lit., 'grave'.
(40) When an embryo or any other object passes out.
(41) Blood of labour. Both R. Judah and the Rabbis regard the shapeless object as a piece of flesh, and not as a mass of congealed blood. Hence whatever its colour the woman cannot be regarded as a menstruant. R. Judah, however, maintains that the uterus never opens without some bleeding though this may sometimes escape observation. The woman is, therefore, unclean on account of the inevitable discharge of the blood of labour even though the object was green or white and no blood whatsoever had been observed. The Rabbis, on the other hand, maintain that the uterus sometimes opens without any accompanying bleeding and the woman is, therefore, clean whenever no discharge is observed.
(42) Within the eleven days' period intervening between the menstrual periods.
(43) Besides being uncertain whether the abortion was accompanied by bleeding.
(44) Sc. whether it was an embryo or a mere lump of flesh.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 21b

her case is one of doubtful childbirth and doubtful zibah, and1 she must, therefore, bring a sacrifice2 which may not be eaten.3 R. Joshua ruled: She must bring a sacrifice and it may be eaten, since it is impossible for the uterus to open without some bleeding.4

Another version reads as follows. Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: R. Judah declared the woman unclean only where the object had the colour of one of the four kinds of blood, but if it had that of any of the other kinds of blood she is clean. But is this correct? Surely when R. Hoshaia arrived from Nehardea he came [to the schoolhouse] and brought with him a Baraitha: If a woman aborted a shapeless object that was red, black, green or white, if there was blood with it, she is unclean, otherwise she is clean; but R. Judah ruled: In either case she is unclean. Now here red, black, green and white were mentioned and R. Judah nevertheless disagrees.5 And should you reply that R. Judah differs only in respect of red and black but not in that of green and white [the question would arise]: For6 whose benefit then was green and white mentioned? If it be suggested: For that of the Rabbis [it could be retorted]: Since the Rabbis declared the woman clean even in the case of red and black blood, was it any longer necessary to state that the same law applies also to green and white? Must it not then be conceded that these were mentioned for the benefit of R. Judah who,7 it thus follows, does differ?8 - Rather, said R. Johanan,9 the point at issue between them is the question whether it is possible for the uterus to open without bleeding.5 They thus differ on the same principle as that on which the following Tannas differ. For it was taught: If a woman was in hard labour for two days and on the third she aborted and she does not know what she had aborted, her case is one of doubtful childbirth and doubtful zibah, and she must, therefore, bring a sacrifice which may not be eaten. R. Joshua ruled: She must bring a sacrifice, and it may be eaten, since it is impossible for the uterus to open without some bleeding.5

Our Rabbis taught: If a woman aborted a shapeless object. Symmachus ruled in the name of R. Meir, and R. Simeon b. Menasia likewise gave the same ruling: It must be split, and if there was blood in it the woman is unclean and if there is none in it she is clean. This is in agreement with the Rabbis but also more restrictive than the ruling of the Rabbis. It is 'in agreement with the Rabbis' who ruled that it was possible for the uterus to open without bleeding; but it is 'also more restrictive than the ruling of the Rabbis', since they hold that only where the blood was with it10 is the woman unclean11 but not where it was only within it,12 while Symmachus holds that [the woman is unclean] even if the blood was only within it.12 Another [Baraitha] taught: If a woman aborted a shapeless object. R. Aha ruled: It must be split, and if its interior shows red,13 the woman is unclean, otherwise she is clean. This is in agreement with Symmachus,14 but also more restrictive than the ruling of Symmachus.15 Again another [Baraitha] taught: If a woman aborted a shapeless object, R. Benjamin ruled: It must be split, and if there was a bone in it, its mother is unclean by reason of childbirth.16 R. Hisda explained: This applies only to a white object.17 So also when a pair [of scholars]18 from Adiabene arrived they came [into the schoolhouse] and brought with them the following Baraitha: If a woman aborted a white shapeless object it must be split and if there was a bone in it the mother is unclean by reason of childbirth.16

R. Johanan citing R. Simeon b. Yohai ruled: If a woman aborted a shapeless object it must be split, and if it contained a quantity of accumulated blood she is unclean, otherwise19 she is clean. This is in agreement with Symmachus20 but is also the most lenient of all the previous rulings.21

R. Jeremiah enquired of R. Zera: What is the ruling where a woman observed a discharge of blood in a tube?22 Since the All Merciful has said, In her flesh23 He implied: But not in a tube,24 or is it possible that the text, 'In her flesh', was required for the deduction that it25 causes uncleanness within26 as well as without?27 - The other replied: The All Merciful said, In her flesh23 implying: But not in a tube; for if the expression 'In her flesh' had been required for the deduction that it25 causes uncleanness within as well as without, Scripture should have said, Her flesh,28 why then did it say, 'In her flesh'? Both rulings may, therefore, be deduced. But did not R. Johanan rule in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: If a woman aborted a shapeless object it must be split, and if there was in it a quantity of accumulated blood she is unclean, otherwise she is clean?29 - What a comparison!30 In that case it is usual for a woman to observe blood in a shapeless abortion,31 but in this case it is not usual for a woman to observe blood in a tube.32

May it be suggested that the question of blood in a tube is a point at issue between Tannas? For it was taught: If a woman aborted a shapeless object, even though it is full of blood, it is only where there was a discharge of blood with it33 that the woman is unclean; otherwise she is clean. R. Eliezer ruled: 'In her flesh'23 implies: But not [where the blood was] within a sac or within any shapeless abortion. (Is not R. Eliezer's ruling identical with that of the first Tanna?34 - Read: For R. Eliezer ruled, 'In her flesh' implies: But not [where the blood was] within a sac or within any shapeless abortion). But the Sages ruled: This is not menstrual blood but the blood of a shapeless object.35 Now does not the first Tanna also declare her clean?36 But the fact is that the difference between them is the case where the abortion was chapped. The first Tanna is of the opinion that 'In her flesh' implies: But not [where the blood was] in a sac or in a shapeless object,37 and the same applies also to a tube.37 This, however, holds good only where it38 was smooth,39 but if it was chapped40 the woman is unclean. What is his reason? It may be described as 'In her flesh'.41 Thereupon the Rabbis came to declare: Although it38 was chapped [the woman is clean since] the discharge is not menstrual but that of the shapeless object.42 Menstrual blood, however, is undoubtedly a cause of uncleanness43 even if it was in a tube!44 - Abaye replied: As regards a tube all45 agree that the woman is clean,46

____________________
(1) Since it is not known whether (a) the abortion was an embryo in consequence of which, whether there was bleeding or not, she is to bring the sacrifice prescribed for a woman in childbirth; or (b) a mere lump of flesh, in which case, if there was no bleeding, no such sacrifice is due; or (c) there was a discharge of blood with (b) in which case (being that of a discharge on three consecutive days) she must bring the sacrifice prescribed for zibah.
(2) To provide (cf. prev. n.) against the possibility of (a) or (c).
(3) Since it is possible, as explained in note 3(b). that she is neither in the position of one in childbirth nor in that of one in zibah, in consequence of which she is not liable to either sacrifice, and the bird that she brought as a sin-offering, having had its head pinched off in accordance with the ritual prescribed for such a sacrifice, is (owing to the possibility that it is no sacrifice at all and that it is, therefore, subject to the rules of slaughter appertaining to unconsecrated animals) thus forbidden to be eaten as the flesh of nebelah.
(4) So that a sacrifice is due in either case: If she gave birth to an embryo she has to bring the sacrifice prescribed for one in childbirth, and if she merely aborted a lump of flesh, since this was inevitably accompanied by bleeding, she (cf. supra n. 4) is regarded as a zabah and is liable to bring the one prescribed for zibah.
(5) Cf. notes on prev. version.
(6) Cf. Bah.
(7) Since he ruled, 'In either case she is unclean'.
(8) From the Rabbis who declared the woman clean. How then could Samuel maintain that 'if it had that of any of the other kinds of blood she is clean'?
(9) Cf. Rashal. Cur. edd. in parenthesis, 'Rab Judah'.
(10) Externally, sc. the passing out of the abortion was accompanied by bleeding.
(11) Lit., 'yes'.
(12) The object.
(13) Though it contained no collected blood
(14) Who laid down supra that blood in the interior of the object causes the same uncleanness as external blood that was discharged with it.
(15) He required accumulated blood while here mere redness is regarded as a cause of uncleanness.
(16) And she is subject to the restrictions of the laws of the prescribed days of both uncleanness and cleanness. Her period of uncleanness extends over fourteen days (prescribed for the birth of a female, and not seven as for a male) while her period of cleanness terminates on the fortieth day (prescribed for a male and not on the eightieth prescribed for a female).
(17) Which is regarded as a kind of flesh.
(18) Zuga. Var. lec. 'Zuza' and 'Zuwa'. (prop. noun).
(19) Sc. if the blood is not accumulated in a considerable quantity.
(20) Who ruled that blood in the interior is a cause of menstrual uncleanness as external blood.
(21) Since according to it blood that is not accumulated (contrary to Symmachus) and a red interior (contrary to R. Aha) are no causes of uncleanness.
(22) That was inserted in the uterus.
(23) Lev. XV, 19, dealing with the menstruant.
(24) The woman is consequently clean.
(25) Menstrual blood.
(26) In the vagina after it had left the uterus.
(27) Sc. when it had completely left the body. In the case of zibah and the emission of semen there can be no uncleanness before the discharge had left the body.
(28) V. marg. gl. Cur. edd. in parenthesis 'in flesh'.
(29) Supra. Now if the blood in the abortion causes uncleanness why should not also blood in a tube?
(30) Lit., 'thus, now'.
(31) It comes, therefore, under the description 'in her flesh'; hence the woman's uncleanness.
(32) Hence R. Zera's ruling that the woman is clean.
(33) When it passed out.
(34) Obviously it is. Why then should R. Eliezer merely repeat another authority's statement?
(35) The woman is consequently clean.
(36) Cf. prev. n. What then is the difference between their respective views?
(37) Since in these cases there is an interposition between the woman's body ('her flesh') and the blood.
(38) The abortion.
(39) So that all the blood within it is completely separated from the woman's body.
(40) In consequence of which some of the blood and the woman's body come in direct contact.
(41) It being a Pentateuchal ordinance that when the blood was in direct contact with the woman's body uncleanness is caused.
(42) As it is not menstrual at all it matters little whether it did, or did not come in contact with the body of the woman who, consequently, is in either case regarded as clean.
(43) Since the discharge came from the uterus.
(44) It thus follows that R. Zera's view is that of the first Tanna while the Rabbis opposed this view. Is it likely, however, that R. Zera adopted the view of the first Tanna, an individual, when it was opposed by the Rabbis who were in the majority?
(45) Even the Rabbis.
(46) Since the Scriptural text 'In her flesh' cannot be applied to it (Rashal).

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 22a

and they only differ in the case of a shapeless object.1 One Master2 holds that it is usual for a woman to observe blood in a shapeless object3 and the Masters4 hold that it is not usual for a woman to observe blood in such an object.5 Raba replied that all6 agreed that it is not usual for a woman to observe blood in a shapeless object, but it is on the question whether the woman is clean7 and the interior of the uterus is unclean8 that they differ, R. Eliezer being of the opinion that though the woman is clean9 the blood is unclean since it comes through the uterus,10 while the Rabbis hold the opinion that the woman is clean and the interior of the uterus is also clean.11

Rabba required of R. Huna: What is the ruling where one observed semen on a splinter?12 Did the Divine Law say, From him13 to indicate that the man is unclean only when it14 issued naturally from his body but not when it was brought out by means of a splinter, or is it possible that the expression 'from him' implies [that the man is unclean] only when his uncleanness12 has come out of his body, in which case [he is unclean] even though that was effected by means of a splinter? - The other replied: You can infer the ruling [from the fact] that the man himself15 becomes unclean only when the quantity of semen emitted suffices to close up the orifice of the membrum.16 This then17 implies that the man18 is regarded as having touched the semen.19 But, then, this20 should not cause [the counting of the clean days] after a zibah to be void.21 Why then was it taught: This is the law of him that hath an issue,22 and of him from whom the flow of seed23 goeth out,24 as zibah25 causes [the counting of the clean days] to be void26 so does semen? - The other replied: As regards counting again, this is the reason why the previous counting is void: because it is impossible for semen to be emitted27 without an admixture of some particles of zibah.28 Now then,29 this should cause the counting of all the seven days30 to be void,31 why then was it taught: ' This is the law of him that hath an issue etc.', as zibah causes the clean days to be counted again so does semen? But in case you should assume that as zibah causes the counting of all the seven days30 to be void so does semen also, it was expressly stated, So that he is unclean thereby;24 you can apply to it32 only that which had been said about it,33 hence it causes the counting of one day only to be void?34 - The other35 replied: It is a decree of Scripture that an absolute zibah in which no semen is mixed causes the counting of all seven days to be void, but particles of zibah in which semen is mixed cause only the counting of one day36 to be void.

R. Jose son of R. Hanina enquired of R. Eleazar: What is the ruling in the case of dry blood?37 Did the Divine Law say, Have an issue38 of her blood39 to indicate that it must be actually flowing,40 hence it refers only to fluid blood but not to dry, or is it possible that the expression, 'have all issue of her blood'41 was used merely because blood usually flows, but the same law in fact applies to dry blood also? - The other replied: You have learnt it: The blood of a menstruant and the flesh of a corpse convey uncleanness when fresh or when dry.42 Said he [R. Jose] to him, 'Where the blood was first fresh and then it dried up, I have no question to ask; my question arises only where it was originally dry'.43 'This also', the other replied, 'you have learnt: IF A WOMAN ABORTED AN OBJECT THAT WAS LIKE A RIND, LIKE A HAIR, LIKE EARTH, LIKE RED FLIES, LET HER PUT IT IN WATER

____________________
(1) That was chapped.
(2) The first Tanna.
(3) The woman is, therefore, unclean. Only when the abortion is smooth, and the blood contained within it does not come in contact with the woman's body, the text, 'In her flesh' cannot, be applied to it.
(4) The Rabbis.
(5) And if she does observe any it is no menstrual blood and she consequently remains clean.
(6) Even the first Tanna.
(7) Because the blood was not menstrual.
(8) And so conveys uncleanness to any blood that passes through it.
(9) Because the blood was not menstrual.
(10) Cf. prev. n. The blood consequently conveys uncleanness to any object with which it comes in contact and also to the woman herself to the extent that her uncleanness lasts until sunset.
(11) So that the blood remains clean even after it had passed through the uterus.
(12) After it had been inserted into the membrum.
(13) And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him (A.V. Lev. XV, 16).
(14) The semen.
(15) Even where there was a natural discharge of semen.
(16) Since the splinter used is inevitably smaller than the orifice, the quantity of semen extracted by it must obviously be less than the prescribed minimum.
(17) Since (as in the case of nebelah for instance) a minimum has been prescribed, below which semen conveys no uncleanness.
(18) Who is deemed unclean on account of the semen.
(19) Had the uncleanness been conveyed to him on account of his observation of it, no minimum would have been prescribed, as none was prescribed for menstrual blood (a case of uncleanness through observation) and where the smallest drop of blood suffices to cause uncleanness.
(20) The man's contact (cf. prev. nn.) with the semen, as his contact with a dead creeping thing, for instance, whose uncleanness also is conveyed through contact.
(21) As is the case where there was such contact with a dead creeping thing.
(22) Sc. zibah.
(23) Semen.
(24) Lev. XV, 32.
(25) That occurs during the counting of the seven clean days after the termination of a previous zibah.
(26) And, before ritual cleanness is attained seven clean days must be counted again.
(27) During the days following a period of zibah.
(28) It is the zibah, and not the semen, that causes the necessity for a new counting of the seven clean days.
(29) Since (cf. prev. n.) the zibah is the cause.
(30) If the discharge was discovered on the seventh day.
(31) As is the case with a discharge of zibah.
(32) Semen, which causes uncleanness for one day only.
(33) Sc. (cf. prev. n.) it cannot be expected to cause a recount of seven days when it never causes uncleanness for more than one day.
(34) How then could R. Huna maintain that zibah is the cause of the recount?
(35) R. Huna.
(36) The last, on which it was discovered.
(37) Sc. does it, or does it not convey uncleanness?
(38) Lit., 'will flow a flowing' (v. infra).
(39) Lev. XV, 25.
(40) Cf. prev. n. but one.
(41) Lev. XV, 25.
(42) Infra 54b.
(43) Sc. the abortion was a piece of dry blood.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 22b

AND IF IT DISSOLVES SHE IS UNCLEAN.1 But if so,2 [should not uncleanness be caused] even if the object was not dissolved? - Rabbah replied: If it is not dissolved it is an independent creature.3 But is there such a phenomenon?4 Yes; and so it was taught: R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok stated, A report of the following two incidents was brought up by my father from Tib'in5 to Jamnia. It once happened that a woman was aborting objects like pieces of red rind and the people came and asked my father, and my father asked the Sages, and the Sages asked the physicians who explained to them that that woman had an internal sore [the crust] of which she cast out in the shape of the pieces of red rind. [It was ruled that] she should put them in water and if they dissolved she should be declared unclean. And yet another incident occurred when a woman was aborting objects like red hairs, and she came and asked my father, and my father asked the Sages, and the Sages asked the physicians who explained to them that the woman had a wart6 in her internal organs and that that was the cause of her aborting objects like red hairs.7

LET8 HER PUT IT IN WATER AND IF IT DISSOLVES SHE IS UNCLEAN. Resh Lakish ruled: And [this must be done] with lukewarm water.9 So it was also taught: Let her put it in water, viz., in lukewarm water. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: She [must attempt to] crush it with spittle on her nail. What is the practical difference between them?10 - Rabina replied: The practical difference between them is [an abortion that can be] crushed by the exercise of pressure.11

Elsewhere we have learnt: How long must they12 be soaked in the lukewarm water?13 Twenty-four hours.14 Now in this case,15 what length of time is required? Do we require a period of twenty-four hours or not?16 Is it only in regard to a creeping thing and carrion, which are tough, that a twenty-four hours' soaking is required but not in that of blood, which is soft, or is it possible that there is no difference? - This is undecided.17

IF AN ABORTION WAS IN THE SHAPE OF FISHES. But why does not R. Judah18 disagree19 in this case also?20 - Resh Lakish replied: This21 was indeed learnt as a controversial ruling,22 and it21 represents only the opinion of the Rabbis. R. Johanan, however, replied: It23 may even be said to agree with R. Judah,24 for R. Judah gave his ruling25 only there, in the case of a SHAPELESS OBJECT, since it is the nature of blood to congeal and to assume the form of a shapeless object,26 but [not here,27 since] it28 can never assume the form of a creature.29 According, however, to that version in which R. Johanan stated that 'the point at issue between them is the question whether it is possible for the uterus to open without bleedings',30 should not R. Judah31 have disagreed in this case also? - He who learnt that version32 reads here: Both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish replied: This33 was learnt as a controversial ruling,34 and it33 represents only the view of the Rabbis.

IF AN ABORTION HAD THE SHAPE OF A BEAST etc. Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: What is the reason of R. Meir? Since in their case35 an expression of forming36 is used as in that of man.37 Now then, if an abortion was in the likeness of a sea-monster38 would its mother be unclean by reason of child-birth, since an expression of forming was used in its case as in that of man, it having been said, And God created39 the great sea-monsters?40 - I can answer: An expression of forming41 may be deduced from another expression of forming42 but one of creating43 may not be deduced from one of forming.44 But where lies the practical difference between the two expressions? Surely the School of R. Ishmael taught: And the priest shall return,45 and the priest shall come,46 'returning' and 'coming' are the same thing!47 Furthermore, why should not one expression of 'creating'43 be deduced from another expression of 'creating', it being written, And God created man in His own image?48 - I can answer: 'And . . . created'48 is required for its own context while 'and . . . formed is available for deduction, hence it is that the expression of 'forming'49 may be deducted from the similar one of 'forming'.44 On the contrary [might it not be submitted that] 'And... formed'44 was required for its own context while 'and . . . created'48 is available for deduction, hence the expression of 'creating'43 may be deduced from 'creating'?48 - The fact is that the expression 'And . . . formed' is available for deduction on the two sides: It is available in the case of man50 and it is also available in that of beast;51 but the expression of 'And . . . created' is available for deduction only in the case of man52 but it is not available for the purpose in that of sea-monsters.53 But why is it54 regarded available for deduction in the case of beast? If it be suggested because it is written, And God made the beast of the earth55 and it is also written, And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field,56 is not a similar expression [it may be retorted] also available for deduction in the case of a sea-monster, since it is written, And God made . . . and every thing that creepeth upon the ground,57 and it is also written, And God created the great seamonsters?58 - 'Every thing that creepeth' that was written in the previously mentioned verse refers to those on the dry land. What, however, is the practical difference between an expression that is available for deduction on one side and one that is available for deduction on two sides?59 - The practical difference is the statement Rab Judah made in the name of Samuel who had it from R. Ishmael:60 From any gezerah shawah61 neither of whose terms is available for deduction62 no deduction may be made;63 if one of the terms is available for the purpose, then according to R. Ishmael, a deduction may be made and no refutation may be offered, while according to the Rabbis deduction may be made64 but a refutation65 may be offered; and if both terms are available for deduction, all66 agree that deduction may be made and no refutation may be offered. As to R. Ishmael,however, what is the practical difference between a gezerah shawah one of whose terms only is available for deduction and one both of whose terms are available for the purpose? - The practical difference is that where there is one of which one term only is available for deduction and another both of which both terms are available for deduction we must leave the former

____________________
(1) Because it is regarded as unclean blood though when she first observed the object it was as dry, for instance, as earth.
(2) That dry blood also causes uncleanness.
(3) And cannot be regarded as congealed blood.
(4) An abortion LIKE A RIND OR LIKE A HAIR.
(5) In Galilee west of Sepphoris.
(6) From which grew hairs.
(7) Tosef. Nid. IV.
(8) Cf. Bomb. ed. Cur. edd. do not indicate that this is a quotation from our Mishnah.
(9) Resistance to which is proof that it is no mass of congealed blood. Resistance to cold water alone is no proof that it is not congealed blood, since it is possible that it would dissolve in lukewarm water and the woman, therefore, cannot be declared clean.
(10) R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the first Tanna.
(11) But cannot be dissolved by mere immersion in lukewarm water. According to the first Tanna, since lukewarm water cannot dissolve it, it cannot be regarded as blood, while according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, since it may be squashed by pressure, it must be regarded as blood.
(12) Unclean things such, for instance, as a dead creeping thing and carrion which have become dry.
(13) To restore them to their original condition of freshness. These (as stated infra) convey uncleanness only when fresh but not when dry.
(14) Infra 54b.
(15) RIND, HAIR, EARTH etc. spoken of in our Mishnah.
(16) Sc. even a lesser period suffices to establish that they are masses of congealed blood.
(17) Teku.
(18) Who in an earlier clause of our Mishnah ruled, IN EITHER CASE SHE IS UNCLEAN.
(19) With the ruling that, OTHERWISE SHE IS CLEAN.
(20) Sc. why does he not here also maintain that the woman is unclean in either case?
(21) The anonymous ruling under discussion.
(22) R. Judah and the Rabbis being in disagreement on it.
(23) The anonymous ruling under discussion.
(24) Who in this case is of the same opinion as the Rabbis.
(25) That IN EITHER CASE SHE IS UNCLEAN.
(26) Hence his ruling (cf. prev. n.) whenever the object had the colour of one of the four kinds of unclean blood. His ruling is thus entirely independent of the question whether the uterus does or does not open without bleeding.
(27) In the case of an abortion of FISHES, LOCUSTS etc.
(28) Blood.
(29) And since the abortion under discussion did assume the form of a creature, R. Judah agrees with the Rabbis that OTHERWISE SHE IS CLEAN.
(30) Supra 21b.
(31) Since the character of the abortion itself is of no consequence.
(32) The one just referred to.
(33) The anonymous ruling under discussion.
(34) R. Judah and the Rabbis being in disagreement on it.
(35) Beasts and birds.
(36) And . . . the Lord God formed every beast . . . and every fowl (Gen. II, 19).
(37) Then the Lord God formed man (ibid. 7).
(38) Which may be classed as a kind of fish.
(39) This is now assumed to be analogous to an expression of 'forming'.
(40) Gen. I, 21. The answer being presumably in the affirmative, how could our Mishnah rule that IF AN ABORTION WAS IN THE SHAPE OF FISHES . . . SHE IS CLEAN?
(41) And . . . the Lord God formed every beast . . . and every fowl (Gen. II, 19).
(42) Then the Lord God formed man (ibid. 7).
(43) Used about sea-monsters in Gen. I, 21.
(44) Then the Lord God formed man (ibid. II, 7).
(45) Lev. XIV, 39.
(46) Ibid. 44.
(47) And an analogy between them may be drawn, though they are derived from different roots, v. Hul. 85a. Why then should no analogy be drawn between 'forming' and 'creating'?
(48) Gen. I, 27.
(49) And . . . the Lord God formed every beast . . . and every fowl (Gen. II, 19).
(50) Since the expression of 'creating' (Gen. I, 27) has also been used about him.
(51) As will be explained presently.
(52) Concerning whom there is also the expression of 'forming' (Gen. II, 7).
(53) Since Scripture contains no other similar expression about them.
(54) The expression of 'forming'.
(55) Gen. I, 25; an expression of 'making'.
(56) Ibid. II, 19; expression of 'forming'.
(57) Ibid. I, 25, an expression of 'making' which presumably includes the sea-monsters.
(58) Gen. I, 21, an expression of 'creating' which is superfluous in view of that of 'making' (cf. prev. n.) and, therefore, available for deduction.
(59) I.e., why is deduction in the latter case preferable to the former?
(60) The last six words apparently require emendation.
(61) V. Glos.
(62) Lit., 'that is not vacant at all'.
(63) Even where no refutation can be offered.
(64) If no refutation can be offered against it.
(65) If one can be suggested.
(66) Even the Rabbis.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 23a

and make the deduction from the latter. And it is for this reason1 that in the case of beast the All Merciful made both terms available for deduction: In order that no deduction shall be made from one of which one term only is available for deduction.2

R. Aha son of Raba taught this3 in the name of R. Eleazar in the direction of leniency. From any gezerah shawah none of whose terms is available for deduction, one may make the deduction and one may also offer a refutation; if one of its terms only is available for the purpose, deduction, according to R. Ishmael, may be made and no refutation may be offered, while according to the Rabbis deduction may be made and a refutation may be offered; and if two of its terms are available for deduction, all agree that deduction may be made and no refutation may be offered. But according to the Rabbis4 what is the practical difference between one whose one term is available for deduction and one none of whose terms is available for deduction? - The practical difference between them is the case where you find a gezerah shawah one of whose terms is available for deduction and another none of whose terms is available for the purpose, and neither the one nor the other can be refuted, in such a case we must leave the one neither of whose terms is available and make deduction from the one of which one term is available. But what refutation is there in this case?5 - One might object:6 A man is different7 since he contracts uncleanness8 even when he is alive.9

R. Hiyya b. Abba citing R. Johanan also stated,10 This is the reason of R. Meir: Since the expression of 'forming' has been used in its case as in that of man. Said R. Ammi to him: Now then, If an abortion was in the shape of a mountain would the woman who aborted it11 be unclean by reason of the birth because it is said, For, lo, He that formeth12 the mountains and createth the wind?13 - The other replied: Does she ever abort a mountain? She can only abort something in the shape of a stone, and that can only be described as a lump.14 But then, if the abortion was some inflated object would the woman who aborted it11 be unclean by reason of the birth because the expression of 'creating' has been used about it as about man, since it is written, And createth15 the wind?13 And should you reply: it16 is not available for deduction,17 [it could be retorted:] Since it could have been written, 'Formeth the mountains and the wind', and yet it was written 'And createth the wind' it may be inferred, may it not, that it16 was intended to be made available for deduction? - The other replied: An analogy for legal purposes may be drawn between words that occur in the Pentateuch18 but no analogy may be drawn between words that occur respectively in the Pentateuch and in the post-Pentateuchal books.19

Rabbah20 b. Bar Hana citing R. Johanan stated, This is the reason of R. Meir: Because [the pupils21 of] their22 eyes are similar to those of human beings. Now then, if an abortion was in the likeness of a serpent would the woman who aborted it11 be unclean on account of the birth since its eye-ball is round like that of a human eye? And should you suggest that the law is so indeed [it could be retorted]: Why then was not the serpent mentioned?23 - If the serpent had been mentioned23 it might have been presumed that only in the case of the serpent do the Rabbis disagree with R. Meir, since the expression of 'forming' was not written about it but that in the case of a beast or a wild animal they do not differ from him since the expression of 'forming' had been written about it.24 But was it not stated in regard to blemishes,25 'One whose eyeball is like that of a man'?26 - This is no difficulty, the one27 refers to the black of the eye28 while the other refers to the slit.29

R. Jannai stated, This is the reason of R. Meir: Because their30 eyes are fixed in the front of their heads31 like those of men. But what about32 a bird whose eyes are not fixed in the front of its head and R. Meir nevertheless ruled that it is a cause of uncleanness? - Abaye replied: This33 applies only to the kadia34 and the kipufa.35 It33 does not then apply to other birds! An objection was raised: R. Hanina b. Gamaliel36 stated, I approve of the view of R. Meir in regard to beasts and wild animals and that of the Sages in regard to birds. Now what did he mean by 'birds'? If it be suggested: kadia34 and kipufa35 [the difficulty would arise]: Wherein do beasts and wild animals differ [from other creatures]? [Obviously in that] that their eyes are fixed in front of their heads like those of men. Now are not those of the kadia34 and the kipufa35 fixed in the same position?37 Consequently38 he must have meant other birds. Thus it may be implied, may it not, that R. Meir differs from the Rabbis in regard to the other birds?39 - Some part is missing40 and this is the correct reading: R. Hanina b. Gamaliel36 stated, I approve of the view of R. Meir in regard to beasts and wild animals, this applying also to the kadia and the kipufa; and that of the Sages in regard to other birds; for even R. Meir disagreed with them only in regard to the kadia and the kipufa, but in the case of other birds he agrees with them. And so it was also taught: R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok stated: An abortion that had the shape of a beast or a wild animal is, according to the view of R. Meir, regarded as a valid birth, but according to the view of the Sages it is no valid birth; and in the case of birds an examination should take place. Now according to whose view should an examination take place? Obviously41 according to that of R. Meir who ruled that the law42 applied43 to the kadia and the kipufa and not to the other birds! R. Aha son of R. Ika retorted: No; the examination should take place according to the Rabbis who ruled that kadia and kipufa are regarded as valid births43 but not other birds. But wherein does the kadia or the kipufa in this respect differ from beasts and wild animals?44 - In that they have jaws like those of men.45

R. Jeremiah enquired of R. Zera: According to R. Meir who ruled: 'A beast that was in a woman's body is a valid birth', what is the law where its father46 received for it a token of betrothal?47 - In what respect could this48 ever matter? - In respect of causing its sister to be forbidden.49 This then presumes50 that it is viable! But did not Rab Judah citing Rab state: R. Meir gave his ruling51 only because in the case of its own species52 it is viable?53 Said R. Aha b. Jacob: 'To such an extent did R. Jeremiah try54 to make R. Zera laugh; but the latter did not laugh'.55

[Reverting to] the [previous] text, 'Rab Judah citing Rab stated: R. Meir gave his ruling only because in the case of its own species it is viable.' Said R. Jeremiah of Difti:

____________________
(1) According to the Rabbis.
(2) Since such a gezerah shawah, as stated supra, could be refuted.
(3) The statement cited supra by Rab Judah.
(4) Who maintain that whether one, or none of the terms is available for deduction both deduction and refutation are admissible.
(5) The analogy (supra 22b) with man. Sc. since, as was explained supra, the only reason why deduction is made from a gezerah shawah both of whose terms are available for the purpose in preference to one of which one term only is available is the consideration that while the latter can be refuted when a logical refutation is offered the former cannot be refuted even in such a case, it follows that where no refutation can be offered it is immaterial whether the deduction is made from the one or the other. And since R. Meir (supra 22b) preferred the gezerah shawah between man and beast (both of whose terms are available) to that of man and sea-monsters (whose one term only is available) he must have intended to avoid thereby a refutation that had suggested itself to him. Now what was that refutation?
(6) Lit., 'because there is (an argument) to refute'.
(7) From other creatures.
(8) From a dead creeping thing, for instance.
(9) Other creatures, however, while alive can never become unclean. It could, therefore, have been argued that man who is subject to the one restriction of uncleanness may also be a cause of uncleanness to his mother when he is born, but any other creature which is not subject to the former restriction is also exempt from the latter.
(10) Like Rab Judah, supra 22b.
(11) Lit., 'its mother'.
(12) An expression of 'forming' like that used of man.
(13) Amos IV, 13.
(14) To which the term 'mountain' cannot apply.
(15) An expression of 'creating' like that used of man.
(16) Cf. prev. n.
(17) I.e., it is required for its own context.
(18) Torah, in its restrictive connotation.
(19) Kabalah, lit., 'acceptance', 'tradition' as distinct from Torah. (Cf. prev. n.).
(20) Cur. edd. in parenthesis 'he said'.
(21) V. Rashi and infra.
(22) Beasts.
(23) In our Mishnah, among the shapes of creatures that cause the woman's uncleanness.
(24) Hence the omission of the serpent.
(25) Which disqualify a beast.
(26) Bek. 40a. Now since such likeness is regarded as a blemish it is obvious that the normal eye of a beast is different from the human one. How then could R. Johanan maintain that a beast's eyes are like human eyes?
(27) R. Johanan's statement.
(28) The pupil, which has the same round shape in man and beasts.
(29) In which the eye is fixed. This is not so round in the eye of a beast as in the human eye.
(30) Beasts'.
(31) Lit., 'go before them'. Those of fishes and serpents are fixed in the sides of their heads.
(32) Lit., 'and behold'.
(33) R. Meir's ruling just cited.
(34) Or (as cur. edd.) 'karia', a species of owls.
(35) Also a species of owls.
(36) Cf. Tosaf. supra 8b. s.v. והא. Cur. edd. in parenthesis, 'Antigonus'.
(37) Of course they are. Consequently they should have been subject to the same law as beasts and wild animals.
(38) Since he made them subject to a different law.
(39) If he had not differed, there would have been no point in R. Hanina's statement, 'I would approve . . . that of the Sages'.
(40) In R. Hanina's statement.
(41) Lit., 'not?'
(42) That the birth is regarded as valid.
(43) Lit., 'yes'.
(44) Who also have their eyes in the sides of their heads. If according to the Rabbis an abortion of the former causes uncleanness why should not also the latter?
(45) Which beasts and wild animals have not.
(46) Who is entitled to effect the betrothal of his daughter while she is a minor.
(47) Which is a valid kinyan (v. Glos.) in the case of a normal child.
(48) Such an absurd betrothal.
(49) To marry the man who betrothed it. It is forbidden to marry a wife's sister.
(50) Since a wife's sister is forbidden to a man only during the lifetime of his wife.
(51) That an abortion of a beast or wild animal is regarded as a valid birth.
(52) Beast born from beast or wild animal from wild animal.
(53) But not when a woman aborted such creatures. The question of wife's sisters, consequently, could never arise in such a case. What then was the point in R. Jeremiah's peculiar enquiry?
(54) By his absurd enquiries.
(55) It is forbidden to indulge in laughter in this world (cf. Ber. 31a).

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 23b

We also learnt the same thing:1 An abortion in the shape of a beast, wild animal or bird [is regarded as a valid birth];2 so R. Meir. And the Sages ruled: [It is no valid birth]3 unless it has the features of a human being. But if the abortion was a sandal,4 a placenta or a foetus with some articulated shape, or if a child issued cut up in pieces, the son born after it is regarded as the firstborn in respect of inheritance but he is no firstborn as far as the priest is concerned.5 Now if one could imagine that such an abortion is viable, would the son born after it be regarded as the firstborn in regard to inheritance?6 Said Raba: It may well be maintained that it is viable but the case there7 is different [from what might have been expected]8 since Scripture said, The first of his mourning9 which refers to the one for whom10 his11 heart aches, and thus excludes an abortion for which12 his heart does not ache.13

R. Adda b. Ahaba enquired of Abaye: According to R. Meir who ruled that a beast that was in the bowels of a woman is a valid birth, what is the ruling where a human child was in the bowels of a beast?14 - In what respect does this matter? - In that of permitting it to be eaten.15 But why can you not solve this question from the following ruling of R. Johanan; for R. Johanan ruled: If one slaughtered a beast and found in it an object of the shape of a dove it16 is forbidden to be eaten?17 - What a comparison! In that case16 there are neither cloven feet nor hoofs, but in this case, granted that there are no cloven feet, there is at least some thing like a hoof.18

THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: ANYTHING THAT HAS NOT etc. R. Jeremiah b. Abba citing Rab stated: All19 agree that if its body was that of a he-goat and its face that of a human being it is regarded as a human child;20 if its body was that of a human being and its face that of a he-goat it is no valid birth.20 They19 differ only where it had the face of a human being but was so created that one of its eyes was like that of a beast, since R. Meir holds that it21 need only have some of the features of a human face22 while the Sages hold that it21 must have all the features of a human face. They23 said to R. Jeremiah b. Abba, Was not the reverse taught: R. Meir said, 'It must have all the features of a human face'24 while the Sages said, 'It need only have some of the features of a human face'?24 - He answered them: If this was taught so you may well rely on it.25

R. Jeremiah b. Abba citing R. Johanan ruled:26 The forehead, the eyebrows, the eyes, the cheeks and the chin must all be present at the same time.27 Raba, however, citing Hasa ruled:26 The forehead, the eyebrow, the eye, the cheek and the chin must all be present at the same time.27 These, however,28 do not differ in principle from one another, since the former ruled according to him who said that27 'it must have all the features of a human face'. while the latter ruled according to him who stated, 'it need only have some of the features of a human face'.

An objection was raised: By the 'shape of the face' of which the Sages spoke29 was meant the presence of even only one of the features of the face,30 except the ear.31 This shows, does it not, that a single feature suffices?32 - Abaye replied: That33 was taught only to indicate what constitutes a hindrance,34 and it33 is in agreement with him who stated [that the reading]35 was 'it must have all the features of a human face'. And if you prefer I might say: It33 is in fact in agreement with him who stated that the reading35 was it need only have one of the features of a human face' but36 the meaning37 of 'one'38 is one of each.39

Raba ruled: If a foetus was created with one eye and one thigh, the woman who gives birth to it40 is unclean41 if these were on the side,42 but if they were in the middle43 she is clean.44 Raba further ruled: If a child's gullet is perforated45 his mother is unclean,46 but if his gullet is closed up47 she is clean.48

Our Rabbis taught: If a woman aborted a stumped body she is not unclean by reason of such a birth. And what is meant by a stumped body? - Rabbi replied: One short of a part which if taken from a live person would cause him to die. And what is the extent of the part that if taken from a live person would cause him to die? - R. Zakkai replied:

____________________
(1) That an abortion of a beast or wild animal is not viable.
(2) In regard to the birthright. If a son is born after such an abortion, though he is entitled to a double share in his father's estate (as a firstborn son, since the abortion is not viable) he (unlike an actual firstborn son) need not be redeemed from the priest. The words in square brackets are wanting in the Mishnah Bek. 46a and appear in cur. edd. here in parenthesis.
(3) Even (cf. prev. n.) as regards the exemption from redemption of the son born after it.
(4) Flat, fish-shaped.
(5) Bek. 46a. Cf. supra n. 2.
(6) Of course not. Since, however, he is so regarded in respect of inheritance it is obvious that an abortion of the nature described is not viable.
(7) Inheritance.
(8) From its viability.
(9) Deut. XXI, 17. E.V., The first of his strength.
(10) If he dies.
(11) The father's.
(12) Cf. prev. n. but one.
(13) Hence it is that an abortion cannot be treated as 'firstborn' and the privilege is, therefore, passed on to the next child if it is a son.
(14) And was discovered after the beast had been slain.
(15) Like the beast in which it was found.
(16) The dove-like object.
(17) Hul. 69a.
(18) The two cases cannot consequently be compared, and the fanciful question must remain unsolved.
(19) R. Meir and the Sages.
(20) The face being the determining factor.
(21) To be a valid birth.
(22) One human eye, therefore, suffices.
(23) So Bomb. ed. and marg. gl. Cur. edd. 'he'.
(24) For a justification of the rendering cf. Tosaf.
(25) Lit., 'it was taught', sc. while he was certain that what he reported had behind it the weighty authority of Rab, it was quite legitimate for them, since they had a tradition to the contrary, to follow their own tradition.
(26) According to the Rabbis (v. infra).
(27) If the abortion is to be regarded as a valid birth.
(28) R. Johanan and Hasa, though with the exception of the forehead, the former speaks in the plural and the latter in the singular.
(29) As a determining factor whether an abortion is a valid birth.
(30) One eye or the forehead, for instance.
(31) Tosef. Nid. IV. Though the ear has the human shape the abortion is no valid birth if the other features are like those of a beast.
(32) To determine that a birth is valid. How then could it he said supra that all the features must be human?
(33) The Baraitha just cited as an objection.
(34) Sc. that even the presence of one feature that was not human causes the abortion, according to the Rabbis, to be regarded as an invalid birth.
(35) According to the Rabbis.
(36) In justification of Hasa's ruling.
(37) Lit., 'and what (is the meaning of)'.
(38) 'One of the features of the face', in the Baraitha cited.
(39) Of the double features; as Hasa in fact stated.
(40) Lit., 'its mother'.
(41) As one who bore a normal child.
(42) Of the face and body respectively. sc. in their normal position.
(43) Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
(44) Since such an abortion is no valid birth.
(45) When it is born.
(46) Because, the child being viable, the birth is valid.
(47) So that the child is not viable.
(48) Such a birth being invalid.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 24a

To the top of the knee joint.1 R. Jannai replied: To his lower orifices.2 R. Johanan citing R. Jose b. Joshua replied: To the position of his navel. The point at issue between R. Zakkai and R. Jannai is whether a trefah3 animal4 can survive.5 The latter holds that a trefah animal can survive6 while the former holds that it cannot survive.7 The point at issue between R. Jannai and R. Johanan8 is a ruling of R. Eleazar; for R. Eleazar ruled: If the haunch and its hollow were removed the animal is nebelah.9 R. Papa stated: The dispute10 refers only to cases where the lower part of the body is affected11 but if the upper part is affected,12 even if the missing part is ever so small the woman is clean.13 So also said R. Giddal in the name of R. Johanan: If a woman aborted a foetus whose skull is a shapeless lump she14 is clean.13 R. Giddal citing R. Johanan further stated: If a woman aborted a foetus shaped like the ramification of a palmtree15 she is clean.13

It was stated: If a woman aborted a foetus whose face was mashed,16 R. Johanan ruled: She14 is unclean; and Resh Lakish ruled: She is clean. R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish: If a woman aborted a shaped17 hand or a shaped foot she14 is subject to the uncleanness of birth18 and there is no need to consider the possibility19 that it might have come from a shapeless body.20 Now if it were so,21 should it not have been stated, 'The possibility that it might have come from a shapeless body or from a foetus whose face was mashed'?22

R. Papi stated:23 Where its24 face was mashed no one25 disputes the ruling that the woman is unclean. They only differ where its face was entirely covered over,26 and the statement27 was made in the reverse order: R. Johanan ruled: His mother is clean; and Resh Lakish ruled: His mother is unclean. Should not then28 Resh Lakish raise an objection against R. Johanan from that [Baraitha]?29 - Because the latter could have answered him: 'A stumped body' and 'a foetus whose face was entirely covered over are identical terms.30

The sons of R. Hiyya once toured the countryside. When they appeared before their father he asked them, 'Has any case been submitted for your consideration?' 'The case of a foetus whose face was entirely covered over', they told him 'has been submitted to us, and we decided that the woman was unclean'. 'Go back', he said to them, 'and declare as clean that which you have declared unclean. For what did you think?31 That you are restricting the law;32 but this is a restriction that results in a relaxation, for thereby33 you also allow her34 the days of cleanness'.35

It was stated: If one aborted a creature that had two backs and two spinal columns, Rab ruled: In the case of a woman it is no valid birth36 and in that of a beast it is forbidden to be eaten;37 but Samuel ruled: In the case of a woman it is a valid birth38 and in that of a beast it is permitted to be eaten.39 On what principle do they40 differ? - On that of R. Hanin b. Abba; for R. Hanin b. Abba stated, 'The cloven'41 is a creature that has two backs and two spinal columns'.42 Rab maintains that such a creature exists nowhere in the world, and that when the All Merciful taught Moses about it43 he must have taught him about one that was still in her dam's bowels, while Samuel maintains that such a creature does exist in the world so that when the All Merciful taught Moses about it43 he taught him about the species in general,44 but one that is still in its dam's bowels is well permitted to be eaten.45 R. Shimi b. Hiyya pointed out an objection to Rab: R. Hanina b. Antigonus stated, Any [firstling of beasts] that had two backs and two spinal columns is unfit for the Temple service;46 from which47 it is obvious, is it not, that it is viable?48 - 'Is it you, Shimi?' the other49 replied, 'this50 refers to a case where its spinal column was only crooked'.51

An objection was raised: Among embryos52 there are some that are forbidden53 viz, a four monthly embryo among small cattle, and an eight monthly one among large cattle, and one that is younger54 is equally forbidden. From this is excluded one that had two backs and two spinal columns. Now what is meant by 'is excluded'? Obviously that it55 is excluded from the category of embryos56 in that it is forbidden to be eaten even while still in its dam's body?57 - Rab58 explains in accordance with his own view, and Samuel59 explains it in accordance with his view. 'Rab explains in accordance with his own view', thus: A four monthly embryo among small cattle and an eighth monthly one among large cattle, and one that is younger is equally forbidden. This applies only where it saw the light60 but while it is still in its dam's bowels it is permitted; but from this is excluded one that has two backs and two spinal columns which, even while still in its dam's bowels, is also forbidden.

____________________
(1) Inclusive; form the foot upwards. A person cannot live after such an amputation (v. infra).
(2) Of the intestines and the urethra. Cf. prev. n. second clause.
(3) V. Glos.
(4) Including man.
(5) V. Hul 42a.
(6) Hence his ruling that the birth is valid unless the missing part of the body extended as high as the lower orifices.
(7) The birth is consequently invalid even if the missing part extended as far as the knee joint only.
(8) Both of whom agree that a fatally wounded animal can survive.
(9) V. Glos. Hul. 21a, 32b.
(10) On the extent of the missing part of the body that renders a birth invalid and causes the woman to remain clean.
(11) Lit., 'from below to above'.
(12) Lit., 'from above to below'; if a part of the skull, for instance, is missing.
(13) Since such a child is not viable and his birth is no valid one.
(14) Lit., 'his mother'.
(15) Sc. the lower part of his body was shapeless while his limbs branched out from its upper part.
(16) But its features were not entirely indistinguishable.
(17) Lit., 'cut'.
(18) Sc. since it is unknown whether the abortion was a male or a female the restrictions of both are imposed upon her.
(19) Which would exempt her from the certainty of uncleanness.
(20) Supra 18a, infra 28a.
(21) That, as Resh Lakish maintains, the birth of a foetus with a mashed face causes no uncleanness to its mother.
(22) Since both these possibilities would be causes of the woman's cleanness. Why then was only the former possibility mentioned?
(23) In accordance with a tradition he received from his teacher (v. Rashi).
(24) A foetus'.
(25) Not even Resh Lakish.
(26) Sc. none of the features was distinguishable.
(27) Of the dispute.
(28) Since it is now R. Johanan who declared the woman clean.
(29) From which the latter raised an objection supra against the former; thus: Why did not the Baraitha add 'the possibility that it may have come . . . from a foetus whose face was entirely covered over'?
(30) Both indicating an abortion none of whose features are distinguishable. This could not be given as a reply in the case of a mashed face where some of the features are not altogether indistinguishable.
(31) When declaring the woman unclean.
(32) Since it was unknown whether the foetus was male or female the woman, having been declared unclean, would have to remain in her uncleanness for a period of fourteen days (as for a female) and not only for seven days (as for a male).
(33) By regarding the abortion as a valid birth.
(34) As a woman after childbirth.
(35) Which even in the case of a male, are no less than thirty-three. Any discharge of blood within this period would consequently be regarded as clean, whereas if the abortion had not been declared to be a valid birth the discharge would have imposed upon the woman the uncleanness of a menstruant.
(36) And she remains, therefore, clean.
(37) Even if it was found in the ritually slaughtered body of its dam, and much more so if it was aborted.
(38) And the woman is consequently subject to the laws of uncleanness prescribed for one after childbirth.
(39) As deduced from Scripture in Hul. 69b.
(40) Rab and Samuel.
(41) Ha-Shesu'ah, Deut. XIV, 7.
(42) Hul. 60b.
(43) That it must not be eaten.
(44) Lit., 'in the world'.
(45) Wherever the dam is of the clean beasts and was ritually slain.
(46) Bek. 43b; because these are regarded as blemishes.
(47) Since it is only forbidden as a sacrifice and is presumably permitted for consumption in the case of unconsecrated animals.
(48) If it had not been viable it could not have been permitted to be eaten. The permissibility to eat the creature, even after it was born, thus raises an objection against both Rab (who ruled that it was always forbidden) and against Samuel (who permitted it only when it was in its dam's bowels). V. Marginal Gloss. Cur. edd. in parenthesis add 'and this is a difficulty against Rab'.
(49) Rab, who was his grandfather.
(50) R. Hanina's ruling from which it follows that a double-backed creature is viable.
(51) And consequently had the appearance of two backs. Such a creature is viable.
(52) Of clean beasts.
(53) To be eaten, as nebelah, even after their birth.
(54) Lit., 'from it and below'.
(55) The beast with the two backs and the two spinal columns.
(56) Which are permitted if found in their dam's body.
(57) How then could Samuel maintain that even while it is in its dam's body it is permitted?
(58) Against whom no objection was raised from the last cited Baraitha but who nevertheless finds a difficulty in its present form in reconciling its first and last clauses. As the first clause deals with those who saw the light the last one (double-backed creatures) also deals obviously with one who saw the light. But its permissibility would be contrary to the ruling of Rab.
(59) Who has to explain the objection raised against him (cf. prev. n. but one).
(60) Lit., 'went out to the air of the world'.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 24b

Samuel also 'explains it in accordance with his view', thus: A four monthly embryo among small cattle, and an eight monthly one among large cattle, and one that is younger is equally forbidden. This, however, applies only to one whose period of pregnancy1 had not ended, but if the period has ended it is permitted; and from this is excluded one who had two backs and two spinal columns which, even though its period of pregnancy had ended,it is forbidden if it saw the light2 but permitted when still in its dam's body.3

A Tanna recited before Rab: As it might have been assumed that if an abortion was a creature with a shapeless body or with a shapeless head its mother is unclean by reason of its birth, it was explicitly stated in Scripture, If a woman be delivered, and bear a man-child etc.4 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised etc.,5 thus implying6 that only a child that is fit for the covenant of the eight days7 [causes uncleanness to his mother] but these8 are excluded, since they are not fit for the covenant of the eight days. 'And', said Rab to him, 'conclude your statement thus:9 And one who had two backs and two spinal columns'.

R. Jeremiah b. Abba intended to give a practical decision10 in agreement with the view of Samuel,11 but R. Huna said to him: 'What have you in your mind? To impose a restriction?12 But this is a restriction that results in a relaxation, since you must in consequence13 allow her also a period of clean blood.14 Act rather in accordance with the view of Rab, since we have an established rule that in ritual matters the law is in agreement with Rab irrespective of whether this leads to a relaxation or a restriction.

Raba said: It has been stated that a woman may bear15 at nine months16 and also at seven months.16 Can [then] large cattle who bear17 at nine months also bear17 at seven months or not? - R. Nahman b. Isaac replied, Come and hear: 'One that is younger is equally forbidden'.18 Does not this also refer to the large cattle?19 - No, it may only refer to the small cattle.20 What an argument this is! If you grant that the reference21 was to the large cattle also, one can well see the necessity for it. For it might have been presumed that since [a seven monthly] is viable in the case of a woman it is also viable in that of cattle, we were informed that it is not viable; but if you maintain that reference was made to small cattle only, this would be obvious, for can a three monthly abortion live?22 - It23 was necessary: As it might have been presumed that anyone [born within] less than two months [before the conclusion of the normal conception] can survive,24 hence we were informed that it25 was not viable.

Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: If an abortion had the likeness of Lilith26 its mother is unclean by reason of the birth, for it is a child, but it has wings. So it was also taught: R. Jose stated, It once happened at Simoni27 that a woman aborted the likeness of Lilith, and when the case came up for a decision before the Sages they ruled that it was a child but that it also had wings. If an abortion had the likeness of a serpent, Hanina the son of R. Joshua's brother ruled: Its mother is unclean by reason of the birth. R. Joseph proceeded to report the ruling to R. Gamaliel when the latter sent word [to]28 R. Joshua, 'Take charge of29 your nephew and come with him to me'. As they were going, Hanina's30 daughterin-law came out to meet R. Joshua.31 'Master', she said to him, 'what is your ruling where an abortion had the likeness of a serpent?' 'Its mother', he replied, 'is clean'. 'But', she retorted, 'was it not in your name that my mother-in-law told me that its mother was unclean?' 'And', he asked her, 'on what ground?' 'Since [she told him] its eye-ball is round like that of a human being'. As a result of her statements R. Joshua recollected his ruling and sent the following message to R. Gamaliel: 'Hanina gave his ruling on my authority'.32 Abaye observed: From this incident it may be learnt that when a scholar gives a ruling he should also indicate his reason so that when he is ever reminded of it he would recollect it.

MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN ABORTED A SAC FULL OF WATER, FULL OF BLOOD, OR FULL OF MATTER OF VARIOUS COLOURS, SHE NEED NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE POSSIBILITY OF ITS BEING A VALID BIRTH; BUT IF ITS LIMBS WERE FASHIONED SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND SUBSEQUENT CLEANNESS FOR THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED] FOR BOTH MALE AND FEMALE.33 IF SHE ABORTED A SANDAL OR A PLACENTA SHE MUST ALSO CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR BOTH MALE AND FEMALE.33

GEMARA. One can well understand why BLOOD or WATER34 [constitutes no valid birth, since in this respect] it is of no consequence;35 but as regards MATTER OF VARIOUS COLOURS,36 why should not the possibility be taken into consideration that it had originally been a child that was now squashed? - Abaye replied: How much of undiluted wine must the mother of this thing have drunk that her embryo should be squashed within her bowels!37 Raba replied: We have learnt, FULL OF, and if it were the case that the embryo had been squashed something would have been missing.38 R. Adda b. Ahaba replied: We have learnt, MATTER OF VARIOUS COLOURS, and if it were the case that an embryo had been squashed it would all have been reduced to the same colour.

It was taught: Abba Saul stated, I was once a grave-digger39 when I made a practice of carefully observing the bones of the dead. The bones of one who drinks undiluted wine are burned; those of one who drinks wine excessively diluted are dry;40 and those of one who drinks wine properly mixed are full of marrow.41 The bones of a person whose drinking exceeds his eating are burned; those of one whose eating exceeds his drinking are dry,40 and those of one who eats and drinks in a proper manner are full of marrow.41

It was taught: Abba Saul (or, as some say, R. Johanan stated): I was once a grave-digger.39 On one occasion, when pursuing a deer, I entered the thigh-bone of a corpse, and pursued it for three parasangs but did neither reach the deer nor the end of the thigh-bone.42 When I returned I was told that it was the thigh-bone of Og, King of Bashan.43

It was taught: Abba Saul stated, I was once a grave-digger39 and on one occasion there was opened a cave under me and I stood in the eye-ball of a corpse up to my nose. When I returned I was told that it was the eye of Absalom. And should you suggest that Abba Saul was a dwarf [it may be mentioned that] Abba Saul was the tallest man in his generation, and R. Tarfon reached to his shoulder and that R. Tarfon was the tallest man in his generation and R. Meir reached to his shoulder. R. Meir was the tallest man in his generation and Rabbi reached to his shoulder. Rabbi was the tallest man in his generation and R. Hiyya reached to his shoulder, and R. Hiyya was the tallest in his generation and Rab reached to his shoulder. Rab was the tallest man in his generation and Rab Judah reached to his shoulder, and Rab Judah was the tallest man in his generation and his waiter Adda reached to his shoulder.

____________________
(1) Lit.,'its months'.
(2) Not being viable it is forbidden as nebelah.
(3) As part of that beast which was a clean one and ritually slaughtered.
(4) She shall be unclean. Lev. XII, 2.
(5) Ibid. 3.
(6) By the juxtaposition of the texts.
(7) The covenant of circumcision.
(8) Which are not viable.
(9) I.e., insert between 'these' and are excluded'.
(10) In the case of an abortion without bleeding of a two-backed foetus.
(11) That the woman is unclean by reason of the birth which he regards as valid.
(12) By treating the woman as unclean.
(13) 'Of your regarding the birth as valid'.
(14) From the seventh to the fortieth day for a male, and from the fourteenth to the eightieth day for a female. Should there be a discharge of blood within these periods respectively the woman could not be subjected to menstrual uncleanness.
(15) A viable child.
(16) After conception.
(17) Viable young.
(18) Supra 24a.
(19) Mentioned earlier in the Baraitha (supra 24a) immediately after the 'small cattle', and in whose case an 'eight monthly' was spoken of. 'One that is younger' would consequently include a seven monthly abortion also who would thus be 'equally forbidden'.
(20) In whose case (cf. prev. n.) only a 'four monthly' abortion was spoken of. The question of a seven monthly abortion cannot, therefore, be solved from this Baraitha.
(21) 'One that is younger is equally forbidden'.
(22) Of course not; and there would have been no necessity to mention it.
(23) The reference to small cattle.
(24) Sc. as in the case of man and large cattle one born at seven months after conception (two months before the normal period of nine months) is viable (though one born at eight months is not viable) so also in the case of small cattle (though one born at four months is not viable) one born at three months after conception (also two months before the normal period of five months) is viable.
(25) A three monthly abortion.
(26) A female demon of the night, reputed to have wings and a human face.
(27) Semunige in Lower Galilee.
(28) So MS.M. Cur. edd. omit.
(29) Lit., 'lead'.
(30) Curr. edd. in parenthesis insert 'R'.
(31) So Rashi, Cur. edd. reading 'to meet him' omit 'R. Joshua'.
(32) Lit., 'from my mouth'.
(33) Cf. Lev. XII, 2-5.
(34) In a SAC.
(35) Lit., 'nothing'.
(36) Being neither water nor blood.
(37) Fabulous quantities, of course, which no woman could possibly be suspected of doing. The suggestion that a normal embryo was squashed is, therefore, untenable.
(38) From the sac.
(39) Lit., 'one who buries the dead'.
(40) Aliter: Black; aliter: Transparent.
(41) Lit., 'anointed', 'oiled'.
(42) Lit., 'and the thigh-bone did not end'.
(43) A Biblical giant (cf. Deut. III, 11).

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 25a

Pushtabna1 of Pumbeditha reached to2 half the height of the waiter Adda, while everybody else reached only to the loins of Pushtabna of Pumbeditha.

A question was raised in the presence of Rabbi: What is the ruling where a woman aborted a sac full of flesh? 'I did not hear of such a law', he answered them. 'Thus', announced R. Ishmael son of R. Jose before him, 'said my father: If it was full of blood the woman is unclean as a menstruant, but if it was full of flesh she is unclean as a woman after childbirth'. The other said to him: Had you told us something new in the name of your father we would have listened to you; but now, since his first ruling3 was given in accordance with the view of an individual, viz., in agreement with Symmachus who cited R. Meir,4 his second ruling also5 might be one given in accordance with the view of R. Joshua;6 but the halachah is not in agreement with R. Joshua. For it was taught: If an abortion was a sac with no fashioned limbs, R. Joshua ruled: It7 is regarded as a valid birth8 but the Sages ruled, it is no valid birth.9

R. Simeon b. Lakish citing R. Oshaia stated: The dispute10 refers only to a sac that was turbid11 but if it was clear12 all agree that it is no valid birth. R. Joshua b. Levi, however, stated: The dispute10 refers to the case of a clear sac. The question was raised:13 Do they differ only in the case of a clear sac but in that of a turbid one all agree that it is a valid birth or is it possible that they differ about the one as well as about the other? - This stands undecided.14 An objection was raised: This exposition was made by R. Joshua b. Hananiah: And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them15 teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, makes no skin for man before16 he is formed. Thus it is clearly proved that a valid birth17 depends on the skin irrespective of whether the sac was turbid or clear. Now if you grant18 that the dispute19 refers to the case of a clear sac there is full justification for his20 need for a Scriptural text;21 but if you maintain22 that the dispute refers only to a turbid sac,23 what need was there for a Scriptural text seeing that the reason24 is a matter of logic? Consequently it may be inferred that the dispute refers also to a clear sac.25 This is conclusive.

R. Nahman citing Rabbah b. Abbuha also26 stated: They27 differ only in regard to a turbid sac but as regards a clear one all agree that it is no valid birth. Raba raised an objection against R. Nahman: But they ruled: The token of a valid birth28 in small cattle is a discharge from the womb,29 in large cattle the placenta,30 and in a woman the sac or placenta',31 but,it follows, the abortion of a sac in cattle provides no exemption.32 Now, if you grant that they27 differ in the case of a clear sac, one can well see the reason why only a woman whose case Scripture specifically included,33 was granted exemption in respect of a sac31 while cattle whose case Scripture did not include no exemption was granted in respect of a sac, but if you maintain that the dispute concerns only a turbid sac consider! [The question of the validity of the birth being dependent] on a logical reason34 what difference in this respect could there be between a woman and cattle?35 - You think that R. Joshua was quite certain [of the nature of the sac],36 but the fact is that R. Joshua was rather doubtful on the matter and, therefore, he followed a restrictive course in both cases.37 [Only the question of the firstborn son] of38 a woman, which is a mere monetary matter,39 [did he rule that the abortion of a sac constitutes a valid birth,40 because] in a case of doubt in monetary matters a lenient course41 is followed.42 On the question of the firstling of cattle, however, which involves a ritual prohibition of shearing43 and of work44 [he ruled the abortion of a sac to be an invalid birth,45 because] in case of doubt in a ritual prohibition a restrictive course must be followed; and so also [on the question of the uncleanness] of a woman [the abortion of a sac is deemed to be a valid birth,46 because] in a case of doubtful uncleanness47 a restrictive course must be followed. But was he48 in doubt?49 Did he not, in fact, quote a Scriptural text?50 - The ruling is only Rabbinical51 and the Scriptural text is a mere prop.52

Said R. Hanina b. Shelemya to Rab: We have53 the statements of54 Rabbi,55 of54 R. Ishmael son of R. Jose,56 of R. Oshaia57 and of R. Joshua b. Levi;58 with whose view does the Master agree? - I maintain, the other replied, that in neither case59 need she take into consideration the possibility of a valid birth. Samuel, however, ruled: In either case60 must she consider the possibility of a valid birth.61 Samuel in this ruling follows his previously expressed view. For R. Dimi when he came62 stated: Never at Nehardea63 did they declare [one who aborted] a sac64 to be clean65 except in the case of a certain sac that was submitted to Samuel on which a hair that lay on one side could be seen through the other side when he said: If it were in fact an embryo it would not have been so transparent.

BUT IF ITS LIMBS WERE FASHIONED etc. Our Rabbis taught: What is meant by a sac the limbs of which are fashioned? Abba Saul explained: A foetus which in its primary stage resembles a locust,66 and its two eyes are like two drippings67 of a fly. R. Hiyya taught: They are far removed from one another. Its two nostrils are like two drippings of a fly. R. Hiyya taught: They are near one to another. Its mouth is as narrow as a stretched hair,68 its membrum69 is of the size of a lentil70 and in the case of a female [the organ] has the appearance of the longitudinal [slit]71 of a barley grain; but it has no shaped hands or feet.72 Of such a foetus there is this description in the post-Pentateuchal Scriptures:73 Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews. Thou hast granted me life and favor, and Thy providence hath preserved my spirit.74 It75 must not be examined in water because water is hard76

____________________
(1) Or (with Aruk) Pashtikna. Cur. edd., Parshtabina. One of the tallest men.
(2) Lit., 'stood to him'.
(3) A sac filled with blood.
(4) Supra 21b.
(5) On a sac filled with flesh.
(6) Also an individual.
(7) Even if it was filled with flesh only.
(8) And the woman is unclean by reason of childbirth.
(9) Cf. prev. two notes. Since the Sages who are the majority differ from R. Joshua the halachah cannot be in agreement with his view.
(10) Between R. Joshua and the Sages.
(11) In which case it may well be assumed that the foetus in it had been crushed.
(12) Filled with clear water.
(13) On R. Joshua b. Levi's statement.
(14) Teku.
(15) Gen. III, 21.
(16) Lit., 'but if so', 'unless'.
(17) Lit., 'thing'.
(18) As R. Joshua b. Levi submitted.
(19) Between R. Joshua and the Sages.
(20) R. Joshua's.
(21) Since by showing that skin alone proves the existence of an embryo he can support his view against that of the Sages.
(22) As Resh Lakish does.
(23) The reason for his view being not the presence of skin but the possibility that the embryo had been crushed.
(24) For being regarded as a valid birth.
(25) An objection thus remains against Resh Lakish.
(26) Like R. Oshaia.
(27) R. Joshua and the Rabbis.
(28) In respect of exempting the one born after it from the obligations of 'firstling' or 'first-born son'.
(29) After a conception.
(30) The young born after such a birth is not regarded as a firstling
(31) Bek. 19a. A son born after such an abortion is no 'first-born son.
(32) Of the next born young from the restrictions of a firstling.
(33) As deduced supra by R. Joshua b. Hananiah.
(34) And not on a Scriptural text which specially refers to the human species.
(35) If the foetus may be assumed to have been crushed in the one case why may it not be so assumed in the other?
(36) That its abortion constitutes a valid birth.
(37) In that of a firstling of cattle and in that of a woman's uncleanness (as will be explained presently).
(38) Lit., 'at'.
(39) A first-born son must be redeemed by the payment of five shekels to the priest.
(40) And the son born subsequently is no firstborn, and no redemption money on his behalf need be paid to the priest.
(41) In favour of the possessor of the money.
(42) The priest, therefore, cannot claim the redemption money (cf. prev. n. but one).
(43) Its wool.
(44) With the animal. It is forbidden to do any work with a firstling or to shear its wool (cf. Deut. XV, 19).
(45) Thus imposing the restrictions of a firstling on the next born young.
(46) Which imposes uncleanness upon the woman.
(47) Also a ritual matter.
(48) R. Joshua.
(49) Whether the abortion of a sac is a valid birth.
(50) Gen. III, 21, supra, in support of his view, which proves that his ruling is Pentateuchal and definite.
(51) Based, on account of the doubt, on the principle quoted supra.
(52) In support of the Rabbinical ruling.
(53) Supra.
(54) Lit., 'that'.
(55) Who said (supra) 'I did not hear of such a law'.
(56) Who said, 'If it was full of flesh she is unclean'.
(57) Who said, 'The dispute refers only to a sac that was turbid'.
(58) Who said, 'The dispute refers to the case of a clear sac'.
(59) Neither in that of a turbid sac nor in that of a clear one.
(60) Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
(61) Sc. she must remain unclean for the prescribed period of childbirth uncleanness, but is not entitled to the privilege of the subsequent period of clean days.
(62) From Palestine to Babylon.
(63) The principal town under Samuel's jurisdiction.
(64) Even if there was no bleeding with the abortion.
(65) I.e., to be exempt from the period of uncleanness prescribed for a woman after childbirth.
(66) Reading (with R. Han. and R. Tam) kerashom (cf. Aruk.) Cur. edd. 'from its head'.
(67) Cf. Jast. 'Eyes' (Rashi).
(68) Lit., 'stretched as a hair thread'.
(69) When sex is distinguishable.
(70) The case spoken of in our Mishnah (q.v.) is one of doubtful sex.
(71) Cf. the reading of 'En Jacob and infra 25b.
(72) Sc. fingers and toes are not yet articulated.
(73) Lit., 'acceptance', 'tradition'.
(74) Job X, 10-12.
(75) A foetus in the conditions described.
(76) Lit., 'strong'.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 25b

and disturbs its shape. It must rather be examined in oil because oil is mild and makes it clear. Furthermore, it must be examined in sunlight only. How is it to be examined? 'How is it to be examined' [you ask]! Of course as has just been described. - Rather, wherewith is it to be examined in order to ascertain whether it was male or female? - Abba Saul b. Nashor, as others say, Abba Saul b. Ramash replied: One brings a splinter with a smooth top and moves it [in an upward direction] in that place.1 If it is caught it will be known that the foetus is a male,2 and if not it will be known to be a female. R. Nahman citing Rabbah b. Abbuha stated: This3 was learnt only of a movement in an upward direction,2 but if sideways [it is no reliable test, since] it may be assumed [that the obstruction] was caused by the sides of the womb. R. Adda b. Ahaba stated: A Tanna taught, If the foetus was a female the organ has the appearance of the [longitudinal] slit of a barley grain.4 R. Nahman demurred: Is it not possible that it5 is merely the depression between6 the testes? - Abaye replied: Since the testes themselves are indistinguishable, would the depression between them be distinguishable?7

R. Amram stated: A Tanna taught, 'Its8 two thighs are like two silk threads', and in connection with this R. Amram explained: Like those of the woof;9 'and its two arms are like two threads of silk', in connection with which R. Amram explained: Like those of the warp.9

Samuel said to Rab Judah: Shinena,10 give no practical decision [on the validity of a birth] unless the embryo has hair [on its head]. But could Samuel have said such a thing, seeing that he ruled, 'In either case must she consider the possibility of a valid birth'? - R. Ammi b. Samuel replied: This was explained to me by the Master Samuel: She must indeed take into consideration the possibility of a valid birth;11 but she is not allowed the privilege of the clean days12 unless the embryo had hair [on its head]. This then implies that Samuel was doubtful on the point.13 But is it not a fact that when a certain sac was submitted to the Master Samuel he said, 'This is forty-one days old', but on calculating the time since the woman had gone to perform her ritual immersion14 until that day and finding that there were no more than forty days he declared, 'This man15 must have had marital intercourse during her menstrual period' and having been arrested16 he confessed?17 - Samuel was different from other people because his knowledge was exceptional.18

IF SHE ABORTED A SANDAL etc. Our Rabbis taught: A sandal is like a sea-fish [of the same name].19 At first it is a normal foetus but later it is crushed. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: A sandal resembles the tongue of a big ox. In the name of our Masters it was testified: A sandal20 must have the facial features.21 Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: The halachah is that a sandal20 must have the facial features. R. Adda citing R. Joseph who had it from R. Isaac ruled: A sandal20 must have the facial features even if only at the back, this being a case similar to that of a man who slapped his fellow and caused his face to turn backwards.

In the days of R. Jannai it was desired to declare [the mother of] a sandal that had no facial features as clean.22 Said R. Jannai to them: You would declare [the mother of newly born] children23 as clean!24 - But was it not taught, 'In the name of our Masters it was testified: A sandal25 must have the facial features'?26 - R. Bibi b. Abaye citing R. Johanan replied: It was on the evidence of R. Nehunya27 that this ruling28 was learnt.29 R. Ze'ira observed: R. Bibi was lucky [to be the first] with his reported traditions, for both I and he were sitting in the presence of R. Johanan when he discoursed upon this tradition, but he30 forestalled me and, reporting it first, gained the advantage.

Why was a sandal31 at all mentioned, seeing that there can be no birth of a sandal without that of an embryo with it?32 - If a female child were to be born with it this would be so indeed,33 but here we are dealing with one with which a male was born.34 As it might have been presumed that, since R. Isaac b. Ammi stated, 'If the woman is first to emit the semen she bears a male child and if the male is first to do it she bears a female child', the one35 is a male as well as the other is a male,36 hence we were informed [that no such assumption is made, for] it might equally be assumed that both emitted their semen simultaneously so that one might be a male while the other35 is a female.37 Another explanation:38 [Sandal39 was mentioned] in order that if a woman bore a female child before sunset and a sandal after sunset40 she must count the beginning of her period of menstruation in accordance with the first birth and in accordance with the second birth.41 As regards the sandal that we learnt

____________________
(1) Euphemism.
(2) The obstruction being attributed to the membrum.
(3) The splinter test.
(4) Cf. the reading supra 25a, ad fin. The latter reading adds 'slit' which is wanting in the original of the former.
(5) The presumed female organ.
(6) Lit., 'thread of'.
(7) Obviously not.
(8) Referring to the foetus in its early stages.
(9) The threads of the woof are thicker than those of the warp.
(10) Keen witted (rt. שנן 'to sharpen'); long-toothed (שן, 'tooth'): or man of iron.
(11) Sc. to remain unclean for fourteen days.
(12) After the conclusion of the unclean ones.
(13) The stages in the development of a foetus.
(14) Following the conclusion of her menstrual period.
(15) The husband of the woman.
(16) Lit., 'he bound him'.
(17) An incident which shows Samuel's remarkable and accurate knowledge of the nature of a foetus.
(18) Lit., 'because his strength is great'. Other people, however, whose physiological knowledge is not so great must adopt a cautious course and take into consideration the possibility suggested.
(19) Cf. Rashi.
(20) If it is to be deemed a valid birth.
(21) Tosef. Nid. IV.
(22) Regarding it as no valid birth.
(23) A sandal being regarded as a valid birth.
(24) Contrary to Pentateuchal law.
(25) If it is to be deemed a valid birth.
(26) Tosef. Nid. IV.
(27) An individual authority.
(28) Lit., 'teaching', the ruling that a sandal that is to be deemed a valid birth must have the facial features.
(29) Hence (cf. prev. n. but one) it may well be disregarded.
(30) R. Bebai.
(31) The law that it causes a woman's uncleanness (cf. our Mishnah).
(32) So that the woman would be unclean even in the absence of a sandal.
(33) There would have been no necessity at all to mention the sandal (cf. prev. n. but one), since it could add no uncleanness, whatever its sex: If it is a female it would subject the woman to the very same uncleanness as the female that was born with it, and if it is a male, the period of uncleanness it causes is a lesser one than that of the female.
(34) So that if the sandal were a female the period of the woman's uncleanness would extend over a longer period.
(35) The sandal.
(36) In consequence of which the woman's uncleanness would be that of a male birth only.
(37) Hence the law of the sandal which imposes the restrictions of a female birth (fourteen unclean days instead of seven) as well as those of a male birth (thirty-three days of cleanness instead of sixty-six).
(38) Which justifies the necessity for the law of sandal even where a female was born.
(39) The law that it causes a woman's uncleanness (cf. our Mishnah).
(40) The day concluding at sunset, when another day begins, and the sandal being thus born a day later than the female child.
(41) I.e., the restrictions of both are imposed upon her: As the sandal might be a male the eighty-first day from the female birth (if there was a discharge) is regarded as the first day of menstruation though that day is still the eightieth from the sandal's birth which in the case of a female is one (the last) of the clean days. The seventh day after the eightieth again is not regarded as the termination of the seven days of menstruation (which began on the eightieth day) since it is possible that the sandal was a female whose eightieth day coincided with the eighty-first of the female child and in accordance with which the woman's seven days of menstruation began a day later (the eighty-second day after the first birth) and consequently terminated a day later.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 26a

in the laws of the firstborn,1 what practical law2 is thereby taught?3 - That the son who follows it4 is regarded as a firstborn son in respect of inheritance5 but not [in regard to his redemption] from the priest.6 What practical law is taught by that of the sandal of which we learnt in the case of those who incur the penalty of kareth?7 - That if the embryo8 is born from her side,9 and the sandal from her womb she10 must bring a sacrifice on account of the sandal. But according to R. Simeon who ruled that 'a foetus born from the side constitutes a valid birth',11 what can be said?12 - R. Jeremiah replied: That if a woman bears the child while she is an idolatress and the sandal after she has been converted [to Judaism] she13 must bring a sacrifice on account of the sandal.

The following was said by the Rabbis before R. Papa: But are all these answers14 tenable? Was it not in fact taught, 'When they15 issue they do so only while clinging to one another'?16 - R. Papa replied: From this17 it may be inferred that the embryo clings to the sandal at the middle of the latter18 which lies across the head of the former.19 Consequently, as regards the law of the firstborn, [the reference is to a case], for instance, where the embryo20 issued with its head first21 so that the sandal22 issued first.23 As regards the law concerning those punishable by kareth it is a case where they24 issued with their feet first so that the embryo was born first.25 R. Huna b. Tahlifa citing Raba explained: It may even be said that they26 cling together side by side, but reverse the previous statement:27 As regards the law of the firstborn [the reference is to a case] where they26 issued with their feet first; so that the embryo, being animated hangs on and does not easily come out; while the sandal, not being animated, glides and comes speedily out. As regards the law concerning those subject to the penalty of kareth [the reference is to a case] where they issued with their heads first, so that the embryo, being animated is deemed to have consummated its birth as soon as its head came out; while the sandal [being inanimated cannot be deemed to have been born] until its greater part came out.

MISHNAH. IF A PLACENTA IS WITHIN A HOUSE, THE HOUSE IS UNCLEAN;28 NOT BECAUSE A PLACENTA IS A CHILD BUT BECAUSE GENERALLY THERE CAN BE NO PLACENTA WITHOUT A CHILD. R. SIMEON SAID, THE CHILD MIGHT HAVE BEEN MASHED29 BEFORE IT CAME FORTH.30

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: The placenta in its first stage resembles a thread of the woof and in its final stage it resembles a lupine. It is hollow like a trumpet; and no placenta is smaller than a handbreadth. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel stated: The placenta resembles the craw of a hen31 out of which the small bowels issue.32

R. Oshaia, the youngest of the fellowship,33 taught:34 Five things have a prescribed minimum of a handbreadth, and they are the following. A placenta, a shofar, a spine, a sukkah wall and a bundle of hyssop. As to the placenta there is the ruling just mentioned.35 'Shofar'?36 For it was taught: What must be the size of a shofar?37 R. Simeon b. Gamaliel explained: It must be of such a size as can be held in one's hand and be seen at either end, viz.,38 a handbreadth.39 What is meant by 'spine'? The ruling which R. Parnak laid down in the name of R. Johanan: The spine of the lulab must be long enough to project a handbreadth above the myrtle.40 'The Sukkah41 wall'? As it was taught: Two walls42 must be proper ones but the third is valid even if it is only one handbreadth wide. 'Hyssop'? As R. Hiyya taught: The bundle of hyssop43 must be a handbreadth long.

R. Hanina b. Papa stated: Shila of the village of Tamartha discoursed on three Baraithas and two reported traditions dealing with the prescribed size of a handbreadth. 'Two'44 [you say]; is it not only one?45 - Abaye replied, read:46 R. Hiyya stated,47 'The bundle of hyssop must be a handbreadth long'. But are there no others?48 Is there not in fact [the law that an enclosed space of] one handbreadth square and one handbreadth in height, forming a cube49 conveys uncleanness50 and constitutes a screen51 against uncleanness?52 - We spoke of the size of 'a handbreadth'; we did not speak of 'a handbreadth square'. But is there not the law concerning a stone that projected one handbreadth from an oven53 or three fingerbreadths from a double stove54 in which case it serves as a connecting link?55 We spoke only of cases where the size of less than a handbreadth is invalid, but here the law would apply all the more to such a case where the size is of less than a handbreadth and it is a handle of the oven. But is there not

____________________
(1) Bek. 46a.
(2) In respect of the child born after it.
(3) Sc. since the birth of a sandal is always accompanied by the birth of an embryo how could the former's presence any more than its absence affect the birthright of a subsequently born son whose status would in any case be determined by that of the embryo.
(4) Sc. the embryo accompanying it if it was a male and was born after it.
(5) He is entitled to a double portion in his deceased father's estate (cf. Deut. XXI, 17).
(6) Cf. Num. XVIII, 15-16.
(7) Supra 7b in respect of the duty of bringing a sacrifice. Cf. supra n. 6 mut. mut.
(8) That accompanied the sandal.
(9) Extracted by means of the Caesarean cut.
(10) Though on account of the embryo, since it was not born from the normal place, she incurs no sacrifice of childbirth.
(11) Infra 40a; so that a sacrifice is incurred in any case.
(12) In reply to the objection: 'What practical law is taught by that of the sandal?'
(13) Who incurs no obligation of a sacrifice on account of the child, since she was still an idolatress when it was born.
(14) Just given, in reply to the objections as to what practical purpose was served by the law of the sandal.
(15) Sandal and embryo.
(16) How then is it possible, for instance, that a woman should be converted between the birth of the child and the birth of the sandal which are simultaneous processes or for one to be born by Caesarean section and the other by natural birth?
(17) From (a) the law relating to those incurring the penalty of kareth which presumes the embryo to precede the sandal and (b) the law of the firstborn which presumes the sandal to precede the embryo and (c) the statement that embryo and sandal issue while clinging to one another.
(18) Sc. the head of the embryo is in contact with the centre part of the sandal.
(19) But does not come in contact with the lower part of its body.
(20) The sandal and embryo clinging to one another in the manner described.
(21) Lit., 'by way of their heads'.
(22) Lying across the embryo's head.
(23) Sc. before the birth of the embryo was consummated. As the sandal was the first to issue the embryo cannot be regarded as a firstborn son to be subject to the obligation of redemption from the priest.
(24) Clinging to one another in the manner described.
(25) Hence the obligation to bring the sacrifice prescribed for a woman in childbirth.
(26) Sandal and embryo.
(27) The one made by R. Papa.
(28) As if overshadowed by an actual corpse.
(29) And having been mixed up with the blood of childbearing which was the greater quantity became neutralized in it.
(30) Hence it can no longer convey any uncleanness.
(31) Lit., 'hens'.
(32) Tosef. Nid. IV.
(33) [Aliter: Oshaia Zeira of Haberya a village in the Hawram district; v. Horowitz, Palestine p. 263].
(34) Cf. Bomb. ed. and MS.M. Cur. edd., 'it was taught'.
(35) In the citation from Tosef. Nid. IV
(36) Cf. MS.M.
(37) Ram's horn used on the two days of the New Year festival (cf. Lev. XXIII, 24, Num. XXIX, 1).
(38) Cf. Tosaf. Asheri.
(39) A handbreadth is equal to the size of four thumbs which equals that of four fingers plus. Hence the prescription that when 'held in one's hand', sc. with the four fingers, it must 'be seen at either end', i.e., it must slightly project to make up the required size.
(40) With which it is bound to form with the willows the Tabernacles festive wreath (cf. Lev. XXIII, 40).
(41) V. Glos.
(42) Of a sukkah (cf. Lev. XXIII, 42).
(43) Cf. Lev. XIV, 4.
(44) 'Two reported traditions'.
(45) That on the spine of the lulab cited in the name of R. Johanan. All the others are Baraithas.
(46) Instead of 'R. Hiyya taught'.
(47) As an Amora. R. Hiyya lived at the end of the period of the Tannas and the beginning of that of the Amoras. When he 'taught' he was citing a Baraitha but when he 'stated' or 'said' he was speaking only as an Amora.
(48) Whose prescribed size is a handbreadth.
(49) Thus constituting a 'tent' of minimum size.
(50) By overshadowing. If an unclean object and a clean one were overshadowed by it the latter becomes unclean even though it had not come in direct contact with the former.
(51) Where the clean object was above, and the unclean one under such a 'tent'.
(52) Oh. III, 7.
(53) So that it can be used as its handle.
(54) Cf. prev. n. On the rendering of 'double stove' cf. Tosaf. 26b, s.v. בפלוגתא, contra Rashi.
(55) Kel. V, 2. Between an object on the stone and the oven or stove. If the object was unclean its uncleanness is conveyed to the oven or stove and if one of the latter was unclean its uncleanness is conveyed to the object.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 26b

the law of ovens of the size of one handbreadth?1 For we learnt:2 - An oven [if it is to be susceptible to uncleanness must] ab initio3 be no less than four handbreadths high, and what remains of it4 must5 be no less than four handbreadths high; so R. Meir. But the Sages ruled: This applies only to a big oven but if it is a small one [it is susceptible to uncleanness] ab initio, after its manufacture is completed, whatever its size, and what is left of it [remains unclean] if it was the greater part of it.6 And [to the question] what is meant by 'whatever its size', R. Jannai replied: One handbreadth, since ovens of the height of one handbreadth are made!7 - He8 did not speak of laws about which a divergence of view exists.9 Now that you have arrived at this argument that law10 [it may be explained]11 is also one in dispute, for in the final clause it was stated: R. Judah said, They spoke of the length of a handbreadth only between the oven and the wall.12 But is there not also a border of a handbreadth?13 - He does not deal with sizes that are prescribed in Scripture. But is there not the ark-cover that was one handbreadth thick?14 - He8 does not discuss holy things. But is there not [the following law]: It suffices for a cross-beam15 to be one handbreadth wide?16 - He17 does not discuss Rabbinical laws.18 [He was concerned only] with such as are prescribed in Scripture and in connection with which no sizes19 have been specified.

R. Isaac b. Samuel b. Martha once sat at his studies before R. Kahana and in the course of the session he observed: Rab Judah citing Rab laid down that throughout the first three days20 the placenta21 is attributed to the child,22 but henceforth the possibility of the birth of a second child23 must be considered.24 Said the other to him: But could Rab have said such a thing? Did not Rab in fact state, 'One child is not detained at all after the other [had been born]'?25 The first remained silent. Said the other to him: Is it not possible that one statement26 referred to an abortion, while the other27 referred to a child that was viable? - You, the first28 answered, have indeed stated Rab's actual rulings, for Rab has explicitly made the following statement: If a woman aborted an embryo and after that she aborted a placenta, if this occurred within three days29 the placenta is attributed to the embryo, but if it occurred at any subsequent time the possibility of the abortion of a second embryo must be taken into consideration. If, however, she gave birth to a normal child and subsequently aborted a placenta, even if that occurred between that moment and ten days later,30 the possibility of the abortion of a second child31 need not be considered at all.

Samuel and the disciples of Rab and Rab Judah32 were once sitting at their studies when R. Joseph the son of R. Menashya of Dewil passed along in great haste. 'There comes towards us', he exclaimed, 'a man whom we can throw down with a piece of straw33 and he would allow himself to be thrown down and pushed out'.34 In the meanwhile he approached them. What, said Samuel to him, did Rab rule in regard to a placenta? - Thus, the other replied, said Rab: The placenta may be attributed only to a child that is viable.35 Samuel then put the question to all the disciples of Rab and they told him the same thing. Thereupon he turned round and looked at Rab Judah with displeasure.36

R. Jose b. Saul enquired of Rabbi: What is the law where there was an abortion in the shape of a raven and [this was followed by] a placenta?37 - The other replied: We can attribute a placenta only to an embryo in whose species38 the placenta is [one of their organs].39 What is the law where the placenta is tied to it?40 - You, the other replied, have asked a question about that which does not exist. He raised an objection against him: If a woman aborted something in the shape of a beast, a wild animal or a bird, and a placenta with them, whenever the placenta is attached to it there is no need to take into consideration the possibility of the existence of a second embryo, but if no placenta is attached to it the possibility of the existence of a second embryo41 must be considered, and one42 must [impose on the woman] on account of them43

____________________
(1) Used as toys (cf. Rashi and Gold.)
(2) Cf. MS.M. Cur. edd., 'for it was taught'.
(3) When its manufacture is completed.
(4) Sc. of a big oven that contracted uncleanness and was then broken.
(5) If its uncleanness is to be retained.
(6) Kel. V, 1. For a fuller explanation cf. Hul. 124a.
(7) Now why was not this law included among the five enumerated by R. Oshaia supra?
(8) R. Oshaia.
(9) The size of the handbreadth in this case being disputed by R. Meir.
(10) About the stone that projected from an oven cited supra from Kel. V, 2.
(11) As a reason why it was not mentioned by R. Oshaia.
(12) Near which the oven is placed. Where a stone is of greater length it prevents the oven from being brought up to the wall and is removed in consequence. Only in such a case is the size restricted to a handbreadth. Where, however, the stone projects on another side, since it would not be removed, it is regarded as a handle.
(13) Ex. XXV, 25.
(14) Cf. Ex. XXV, 17, as explained in Suk. 4b.
(15) Placed above the entrance to a blind alley in connection with the permissibility of the movement of objects on the Sabbath.
(16) 'Er. 13b.
(17) R. Oshaia.
(18) Ali the Sabbath laws in connection with an alley are merely Rabbinical.
(19) Lit., 'their sizes'.
(20) After the birth of a child.
(21) That issued after the childbirth.
(22) That was born. The days of the woman's uncleanness and cleanness are consequently reckoned from the day of the child's birth and not from the latter day on which the placenta issued.
(23) Who was crushed within the placenta and who might have been a female.
(24) And the restrictions of a female birth (fourteen unclean days instead of seven, for instance,) are imposed.
(25) How then could he have ruled that after three days had passed the placenta might still be attributed to a second child?
(26) According to which a second child might be born three or more days after the birth of the first one.
(27) 'One child is not detained at all after the other'.
(28) Who, thanks to R. Kahana's suggestion, recollected Rab's actual words and as a result was grateful and complimentary (cf. R. Gershom, contra Rashi).
(29) After the abortion of the embryo.
(30) Lit., 'from here and onwards'.
(31) That may have been crushed in the placenta.
(32) Who was a former disciple of Rab and joined Samuel's academy for some time after Rab's death.
(33) Lit., 'straw of the wheat'. Metaphor: The man could be upset by the simplest of arguments. Aliter: On whom we may throw wheat-chaff, i.e., embarrass with petty questions (Jast.).
(34) Cf. prev. n. He would not be able to open his mouth in defence of his views.
(35) As suggested supra by R. Kahana and confirmed by R. Isaac.
(36) 'He considered it a discourtesy on the part of Rab Judah (cf. supra n. 3) not to have informed him earlier of such an important ruling of Rab.
(37) Is the placenta, it is asked, attributed to the raven-shaped embryo or is it attributed to a human embryo that may have been crushed in it?
(38) Man and beast.
(39) Birds are, therefore, excluded.
(40) The raven-shaped object.
(41) That may have been crushed within the placenta.
(42) Lit., 'behold I'.
(43) The two embryos.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 27a

the restrictions of the two births;1 for it is assumed2 that the foetus of the placenta may have been crushed3 and that the placenta of the foetus4 was also crushed.5 This is indeed a refutation.

Rabbah b. Shila citing R. Mattena who had it from Samuel stated: It once happened that a placenta was attributed to an embryo as late as6 ten days [after the latter's birth].7 [The law, however, that it] is to be attributed [to the existing embryo] applies only8 where the expulsion of the placenta followed the birth of the embryo.9 Rabbah b. Bar Hana citing R. Johanan stated: It once happened that a placenta was attributed to an embryo as late as10 twenty-three days [after the birth of the latter]. 'You once told us', said R. Joseph to him, 'as late as twenty-four days'. R. Aha son of 'Awira citing R. Johanan11 stated: It once happened that the birth of an embryo was delayed for thirty-three days after that of its predecessor. 'You', said R. Joseph to him, 'have in fact told us thirty-four days.' [Such an incident may be explained] satisfactorily according to him who holds that a woman who bears at nine months does not necessarily complete the full number,12 since in such circumstances it is possible that the features of one embryo were completed at the end13 of seven months14 and those of the other at the beginning13 of the ninth month,15 but according to him who maintains that a woman who bears at nine months does complete the full number,12 what can be said [in explanation of the incident]?16 - Reverse the statements:17 Thirty-three days in the case of the placenta18 and twenty-three days in that of the embryo.19

R. Abin b. R. Adda citing R. Menahem of Kefar She'arim or, as some say, Beth She'arim, stated: It once happened that a child was born three months later than its predecessor and lo, both sit before us in the schoolhouse. And who are they? - Judah and Hezekiah the sons of R. Hiyya. But did not a Master say that a woman in conception cannot conceive again?20 - Abaye replied: It was the same drop but it was divided in two sections; the features of one of these were completed at the beginning of the seventh month and those of the other were completed at the end of the ninth month.

IF A PLACENTA IS WITHIN A HOUSE, THE HOUSE IS UNCLEAN. Our Rabbis taught: If a placenta is in a house, the house is unclean; not because a placenta is a child but because generally there can be no placenta with which there is no child; so R. Meir. R. Jose, R. Judah and R. Simeon regard [the house] as clean. 'Do you not agree', they said to R. Meir, 'that if it had been carried out in a bowl into an outer room it would be clean?' 'Indeed', he replied. 'But why?'21 'Because it22 is no longer in existence'. 'As', they retorted, 'it is not in existence in the outer room so is it not in existence in the inner room'.23 'What was mashed once', he replied, 'is not like that which was mashed twice.'24 R. Papa once sat behind R. Bubi in the presence of R. Hamnuna and in the course of the session he observed: What is R. Simeon's reason?25 He is of the opinion that any uncleanness with which anything of a different kind of uncleanness has been mixed is neutralized. Said R. Papa to them: 'Is this also the reason of R. Judah and R. Jose?'26 They laughed at him. 'Is not this obvious', they said, 'why should there be any difference?'27 - 'Even such a question',28 said R. Papa, 'a man should submit to his Master29 and not be content with silence;30 for it is said, If thou hast done foolishly31 thou art32 lifting up thyself;33 but34 if thou hast planned devices,35 lay thy hand upon thy mouth.36

R. Simeon37 follows the view he expressed elsewhere. For it was taught: If some earth fell into a ladleful of corpse-mould [the latter remains] unclean, but R. Simeon holds it to be clean. What is R. Simeon's reason? - Raba38 replied: 'I met the Rabbis of the schoolhouse while they were sitting at their studies and explaining that39 it is impossible that [somewhere in the mixture] two particles of earth to one of the corpse-mould should not represent the larger portion, so that40 something is missing',41 and I said to them, 'On the contrary! It is impossible that [somewhere in the mixture] two particles of the corpse-mould should not represent a part greater than

____________________
(1) If, for instance, the embryo aborted was a male, the placenta is presumed to contain the crushed embryo of a female, and the woman must, therefore, count fourteen unclean days (as for a female) and not only seven (as prescribed for a male). According to the Rabbis (who do not regard a bird or a beast as a valid birth) the restriction imposed would be to regard 'neither birth as valid and to deprive the woman in consequence of the advantage of the clean days prescribed for a woman after a childbirth.
(2) Lit., 'for I say'.
(3) So that the placenta belonged to that foetus and not to the one in existence.
(4) That is in existence.
(5) And lost. Hul. 77a. It is thus shown that a placenta is sometimes attached to the foetus. How then could Rabbi maintain (supra 26b ad fin.) that such a thing 'does not exist'?
(6) Lit., 'until'.
(7) Despite the long interval between the birth of the embryo and the expulsion of the placenta no assumption was made that the placenta of the embryo in existence was lost and that the placenta in existence belonged to a second embryo that was crushed.
(8) Lit., 'and they only said'.
(9) If, however, it preceded it the possibility must be taken into consideration that it belonged to another embryo that had been crushed; and consequently the restrictions applying to the two embryos must be imposed.
(10) Lit., 'until'.
(11) So Bah. Cur. edd., 'R. Isaac'.
(12) Of the nine months. Limekuta'in (from a rt. meaning 'to lop off').
(13) Within a day or two.
(14) In consequence of which it is viable.
(15) The eighth month consisting of twenty-nine or thirty days together with the odd days of the seventh and the ninth months (cf. prev. n. but one) making up the interval of thirty-three days.
(16) Apparently nothing whatever. If the first was born in the seventh month (even if on the last day) and the second in the ninth month the interval would not be one of thirty-three days but one of no less than two months. If they were both born in the seventh month the interval would inevitably be less than thirty-three days (since a Hebrew month never contains more than thirty days). If again, one was born in the seventh and the other in the eighth month the latter could not be viable, whereas the incident which speaks of a welad ('child') and not of nefel ('abortion') seems to refer to two viable children.
(17) Of R. Johanan.
(18) The first incident described supra.
(19) The second of the incidents supra. This is quite possible where both embryos were born in the seventh month, since all agree that a child may be viable even if the full number of seven months was not completed.
(20) Lit., 'a woman does not conceive and conceive again'. How then was it possible for a child to be born three months after its predecessor.
(21) Should then the first house be unclean.
(22) Having been mashed in the water.
(23) Since it was mashed in the placenta.
(24) 'There is no comparison between one presumption that the embryo was mashed and two such suppositions (that the placenta of one embryo and the embryo of another placenta were mashed)'. Jast.
(25) Sc. granted that the embryo was mashed, does not a mashed corpse convey uncleanness?
(26) Who are of the same opinion as R. Simeon supra.
(27) None whatever (cf. prev. n.).
(28) Which might cause one to be an object of ridicule.
(29) To make sure of his tradition.
(30) By relying on his own intelligence.
(31) Sc. asked what might appear to be a ridiculous question.
(32) E.V., 'in'.
(33) One's knowledge is of the highest order and first hand.
(34) E.V., 'or'.
(35) In seeking to escape possible ridicule.
(36) Prov. XXX, 32; he will not be able to give an authoritative answer when a question on the subject is addressed to him.
(37) In his ruling supra that 'Any uncleanness with which anything of a different kind . . . has been mixed is neutralized'.
(38) So MS.M. and Bah. Cur. edd., 'Rabbah'.
(39) Though the earth is much less than the corpse-mould.
(40) Since in that part of the mixture, at least, the corpse-mould is neutralized and loses its uncleanness.
(41) From the prescribed minimum of a ladleful. The whole mixture is consequently clean.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 27b

one particle of earth,1 so that2 the quantity is increased'.3 The fact, however, is, said Raba,4 that this is the reason of R. Simeon: Its final stage5 is treated as its first stage.6 As in its first stage any other matter7 becomes its antidote8 so also in its final stage5 any other matter9 becomes its antidote,8 What is that law?10 - It was taught: In what circumstances is a corpse subject to the uncleanness of11 corpse-mould and in what circumstances is a corpse not subject to the uncleanness of corpse-mould? If a corpse was buried naked in a marble sarcophagus or on a stone floor12 it is one that is subject to the uncleanness of corpse-mould. And in what circumstances is a corpse not subject to the uncleanness of corpse-mould? If it was buried in its shroud,13 or in a wooden coffin,14 or on a brick floor14 it is one that is not subject to the uncleanness of corpse-mould.15 And [the Sages] spoke of the uncleanness of corpse-mould only in the case of one who died, thus excluding a killed person who16 is not [subject to this law].17

[To turn to] the main text, 'If some earth fell into a ladleful of corpse-mould [the latter remains] unclean, but R. Simeon holds it to be clean. If a ladleful of corpse-mould was scattered in a house the house is unclean,18 but R. Simeon holds it to be clean'.19 And both these rulings were required. For if we had been informed of the first one only20 it might have been presumed that only in that case do the Rabbis maintain their view,21 since it22 is collected together but that where it was scattered they agree with R. Simeon, since a succession of incomplete overshadowings23 is of no consequence.24 And if we had been informed of the latter only25 it might have been presumed that only in that case does R. Simeon maintain his view,26 since a succession of incomplete overshadowings23 is of no consequence,27 but that in the former case28 he agrees with the Rabbis.21 Hence both were required.

Elsewhere we learnt:29 A ladleful and more of the earth of a graveyard30 is unclean,31 but R. Simeon regards it as clean.32 What is the reason of the Rabbis? - Because it is impossible to have 'a ladleful33 and more' of the earth of a graveyard in which there is not contained a ladleful of corpse-mould.34

Now that you have explained that R. Simeon's reason is because 'its final stage is treated as its first stage',35 what could be his reason in the case of a PLACENTA?36 - R. Johanan replied: Because the law of neutralization in the larger quantity37 has been applied to it.38 R. Johanan in fact follows here39 a view he expressed elsewhere. For R. Johanan stated: R. Simeon and R. Eliezer b. Jacob laid down the same ruling.40 R. Simeon laid down the ruling we have just spoken of.41 R. Eliezer [also laid down the same ruling] for we learnt:42 R. Eliezer b. Jacob ruled, If a beast43 of the class of large cattle discharged a clot of blood, this44 shall be buried45 and [the beast] is exempt from the law of the firstling;46 and in connection with this R. Hiyya taught: It44 does not convey uncleanness either through touch or through carriage.47 But since it conveys no uncleanness either through touch or through carriage48 why49 should it be buried? - In order to publish the fact that [the beast] is exempt from the law of the firstling. It thus clearly follows that it44 is deemed to be a proper embryo,50 then why did R. Hiyya teach, 'It does not convey uncleanness either through touch or through carriage'? - R. Johanan replied: Because the law of neutralization in the larger quantity51 has been applied to it,52

R. Ammi citing R. Johanan stated: R. Simeon, however,53 agrees that its mother is unclean by reason of childbirth. Said a certain old man to R. Ammi: 'I will explain to you R. Johanan's reason:54 For Scripture says, If a woman conceived seed55 and bore a man-child etc.,56 which implies: Even if she bore in the same manner only as she 'conceived seed'57 she is unclean by reason of childbirth.

Resh Lakish ruled: A sac that was beaten up in its fluid assumes the same status as a corpse whose shape was destroyed.58 Said R. Johanan to Resh Lakish: Whence do we infer that a corpse whose shape had been destroyed is clean? If it be suggested, From the following statement which R. Shabthai cited in the name of R. Isaac of Magdala or, as others say, R. Isaac of Magdala cited in the name of R. Shabthai, 'If a corpse has been burnt but its shape remained59 it is unclean. It once happened that on account of such a corpse60 the big61 doors62 were declared unclean63

____________________
(1) With which they are mixed in that particular section.
(2) The earth also becoming unclean on account of the greater part of the corpse-mould with which it is mixed.
(3) We-nafish (cf. marg. n. and Bomb. ed.) Cur. edd., we-nafil (and it falls).
(4) So MS.M., Cur. edd. 'Rabbah'.
(5) When a corpse is already converted into corpse-mould.
(6) When the corpse is buried.
(7) That is mixed up with the decaying corpse.
(8) Cf. Rashi. Gingilon (or gilgilon, cf. Tosaf.), lit., 'belt' (cf. cingulum); sc. the smallest piece of material buried with a corpse neutralizes the uncleanness of its mould.
(9) That mixed with the mould.
(10) About the first stage just referred to.
(11) Lit., 'which is the corpse that has'.
(12) So that there is no foreign matter in the vicinity of the corpse that is likely to be mixed up with its mould.
(13) Which on decaying would naturally be mixed up with the decaying matter of the corpse.
(14) Which would moulder (cf. prev. n.).
(15) Since the foreign matter that mixes with the decaying matter of the corpse neutralizes it and liberates the corpse-mould from its uncleanness.
(16) Being regarded as a defective corpse (cf. Naz. 51b) on account of the blood he lost.
(17) Tosef. Nid. II, Naz. 51a.
(18) On account of ohel or overshadowing.
(19) Oh. III, 2.
(20) Earth mixed with corpse-mould.
(21) That the mould remains unclean.
(22) The corpse-mould.
(23) Sc. one part of the roof does not overshadow the prescribed minimum of corpse-mould but one part of it overshadows one part of the minimum while another part overshadows another part of it.
(24) Lit., 'that one does not make a tent and make a tent again', and the room, therefore, remains clean.
(25) Corpse-mould scattered.
(26) That the house is clean.
(27) Cf. prev. n. but two mut. mut.
(28) Earth mixed with corpse-mould.
(29) V. marg. gl. Cur. edd. 'in another Baraitha it was taught'.
(30) Which consists of a mixture of corpse-mould and earth.
(31) The reason is explained presently.
(32) The reason is given supra by Raba.
(33) Lit., 'to fill a ladle'.
(34) The required minimum.
(35) Cf. prev. n. but two.
(36) Where this comparison cannot be made.
(37) There is more blood of labour than mashed embryo.
(38) Lit., 'they touched it'. As the blood of labour which is the larger quantity is clean, the lesser quantity of the mashed embryo is neutralized in it, and is, therefore, clean.
(39) In the answer just given.
(40) That a mashed embryo is neutralized in the larger quantity of the blood of labour.
(41) An embryo mashed in a placenta causes no uncleanness.
(42) Cf. marg. gl. and Bomb. ed. Cur. edd., 'for it was taught'.
(43) Which had never before born any young.
(44) The clot.
(45) It being possible that it contained a mashed firstling which is sacred.
(46) Bek. 21b; sc. its next born young is not regarded as a firstling and need not be given to the priest.
(47) Not being regarded as nebelah (v. Glos.) the man who touches or carries it remains clean.
(48) From which it follows that it is not regarded as an embryo.
(49) Since it is consequently no firstling.
(50) Had it not had that status the beast would not have been exempt from the law of the firstling.
(51) There being more blood of labour than mashed embryo.
(52) The mashed embryo is consequently neutralized and is, therefore, clean.
(53) Though he ruled in our Mishnah that the house is clean because THE CHILD MIGHT HAVE BEEN MASHED etc.
(54) For subjecting the woman to the uncleanness of childbirth even when the embryo is mashed.
(55) So according to A.V, and R.V. and the exposition that follows. J.T., 'be delivered'.
(56) Lev. XII, 2.
(57) Sc. the former was in a fluid state like the latter.
(58) Sc. burned and scattered. Such human remains convey no uncleanness.
(59) I.e., its ashes still kept together so that the body appears whole.
(60) Lit., 'for him'.
(61) No less than four handbreadths wide.
(62) Of the house in which it lay.
(63) Since the corpse can be carried intact through them.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 28a

but the small doors1 were declared clean'; from which you infer that the reason [why the big doors were declared unclean is] because its shape is still intact but had it not been in such a condition they2 would have been clean; on the contrary [it could be retorted] draw from this the following inference:3 Only when its shape is intact were the small doors declared clean but otherwise the small doors also are unclean, since everyone of them is fit for carrying through it one limb at a time.4 Said Rabina to R. Ashi: [Do you know] in agreement with whose view R. Johanan made his statement?5 In agreement with that of R. Eliezer, For we learnt: The ashes of burnt corpses, R. Eliezer ruled, [convey uncleanness] if they are a quarter of a kab in quantity.6 How is one to imagine a corpse that was burnt but whose shape remained intact? - Abaye replied: In such a case, for instance, as where it was burnt on a leather spread.7 Raba replied: In such a case, for instance, as where it was burnt on a hard cemented substance.8 Rabina replied: Where, for instance, it was only charred.9

Our Rabbis taught: If a woman aborted a shaped10 hand or a shaped11 foot she12 is subject to the uncleanness of childbirth and there is no need to consider the possibility that it might have come from a shapeless body.13 Both R. Hisda and Rabbah b. R. Huna ruled: She14 is not allowed the days of cleanness.15 What is the reason? - It might be assumed that16 her bearing took place long ago.17 R. Joseph raised an objection: If a woman aborted an embryo and18 it is unknown what [was the sex of the embryo] she aborted she must continue [her periods of uncleanness and cleanness as] for both a male child and a female child.19 Now if it is to be upheld20 that in any such case21 it might be assumed that her bearing took place long ago,22 why23 was it not also stated, 'and as for menstruation'?24 - Abaye replied: If 'as for menstruation' had been mentioned it might have been presumed that25 she brings a sacrifice26 which27 may not be eaten; hence we were informed28 that it may be eaten.29

R. Huna ruled: If an embryo put forth its hand and then drew it back its mother is unclean on account of childbirth; for it is said, And it came to pass, when she bore,30 that one put out a hand.31 Rab Judah raised an objection: If an embryo put forth its hand its mother need not consider the possibility of any restriction!32 - R. Nahman replied: This was explained to me by R. Huna that the woman must indeed consider the possibility [that it is a valid birth],33 but we do not allow her the privilege of the clean days34 unless the greater part of the embryo has issued forth. But was it not stated 'Its mother need not consider the possibility of any restriction'? - Abaye replied: Pentateuchally she need not consider the possibility of any restriction, but it is Rabbinically that she must take into consideration the possibility [that it might have constituted a valid birth]. But did he35 not quote a Scriptural text?36 - The restriction is Rabbinical, and the Scriptural text is a mere prop.37

MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN ABORTED A TUMTUM OR AN ANDROGINOS,38 SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN HER UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR BOTH A MALE39 AND A FEMALE,40 IF SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A TUMTUM AND A MALE, OR TO AN ANDROGINOS AND A MALE, SHE MUST ALSO CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR BOTH A MALE39 AND A FEMALE.40 IF SHE HAVE A TUMTUM AND A FEMALE OR AN ANDROGINOS AND A FEMALE, SHE NEED CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AS] FOR A FEMALE ONLY.41 IF THE EMBRYO ISSUED IN PIECES42 OR IN A REVERSED POSITION43 IT IS DEEMED BORN AS SOON AS ITS GREATER PART ISSUED FORTH. IF IT CAME FORTH IN THE NORMAL WAY [IT IS NOT DEEMED BORN] UNTIL THE GREATER PART OF ITS HEAD ISSUED FORTH. AND WHAT IS MEANT [BY THE ISSUE OF] THE 'GREATER PART OF ITS HEAD'? THE ISSUE44 OF ITS FOREHEAD.

GEMARA. Now that it has been laid down that for a TUMTUM alone or for an ANDROGINOS alone SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN HER UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR BOTH A MALE AND A FEMALE, why should it again be necessary [to state that the same law applies where she gave birth to] A TUMTUM AND A MALE OR TO AN ANDROGINOS AND A MALE? - This was necessary: As it might have been suggested that since R. Isaac had stated, 'If the woman emits her semen first she bears a male and if the man emits his first she bears a female',45 it should be assumed that since the one is a male the other46 also is a male, hence we were informed [that no such assumption is made, since] it might equally be assumed that both47 emitted their semen simultaneously, the one resulting in a male and the other in a female.48 R. Nahman citing Rab ruled: If a tumtum or an androginos observed a white,49 or a red50 discharge he51 does not incur the obligation of an offering for entering the Sanctuary52 nor is terumah53 to be burnt on his account.54 If he51 observed a simultaneous discharge of white and red,55 he incurs indeed no obligation of an offering for entering the Sanctuary56 but terumah53 must be burnt on his account;57 for58 it is said, Both male and female

____________________
(1) Less than four handbreadths in width, through which, owing to the availability of larger doors, the corpse would not be carried.
(2) The big doors,
(3) Lit., 'to that side'.
(4) From which it would follow that 'a corpse whose shape had been destroyed' is also unclean; contrary to the view of Resh Lakish (supra 27b, ad fin.).
(5) That a corpse whose shape had been destroyed is also unclean (cf. prev. n.).
(6) Oh. II, 2.
(7) Katabela, cf. K** (Jast.); a skin boiled and hardened which is not consumed when the corpse is burnt (v. Rashi) and moulded in the shape of a human body (Tosaf.) so that the burned remains are kept together.
(8) Or 'over the dung on a cemented stable-floor' (Jast.); marble (Rashi); providing a mould for the corpse (cf. prev. n.).
(9) In which case the body is kept together without any external aid.
(10) Lit., cut', sc. with fingers well defined.
(11) Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
(12) Lit., 'his mother'.
(13) Which has not the status of a child.
(14) Though subject to the uncleanness of a normal birth.
(15) Which, in the case of a normal birth, follow the period of uncleanness.
(16) Since the embryo was aborted in parts and it is unknown when the birth of the greater part of it occurred.
(17) And by the time the hand or foot in question was aborted the prescribed period of uncleanness may have passed.
(18) Having been aborted in fractions.
(19) Infra 29a; sc. the restrictions of both are imposed upon her.
(20) Lit., 'it goes up to your mind'.
(21) Abortion in parts.
(22) Cf. p. 190, n. 14.
(23) Since in this case also it is not known when the birth of the greater part of the embryo took place.
(24) I.e., the uncleanness should not only extend over fourteen days (prescribed for the birth of a female child) irrespective of whether blood was or was not observed, but even any subsequent discharge of blood, which in the case of a normal birth is clean, should (since her period of clean days may have already passed) be regarded as that of menstruation. (On the mention of male child v. infra 30a).
(25) Since the ruling that the woman is subject to the restrictions of menstruation implies that it is not certain whether the embryo is, or is not to be regarded as a normal child.
(26) Prescribed for a woman after a childbirth.
(27) As the embryo possibly may not have the status of a normal child (cf. prev. n. but one).
(28) By the omission of 'as for menstruation' which indicates that there is no doubt whatever that the embryo is in this respect regarded as a normal child, and that it was only its sex that was in doubt.
(29) As any other valid sacrifice brought by a woman after a childbirth.
(30) E. V., 'she travailed'.
(31) Gen. XXXVIII, 28; emphasis on bore and hand which shows that the issue of a hand alone is described as a 'birth'.
(32) How then could R. Huna maintain that a woman in such circumstances is subject to the uncleanness of childbirth?
(33) Sc. she must continue in the days of uncleanness as after a normal childbirth.
(34) That normally follow those of uncleanness.
(35) R. Huna.
(36) How then could the restriction be said to be Rabbinical only?
(37) Asmakta.
(38) Hermaphrodite.
(39) In respect of the period of cleanness, thirty-three days instead of the sixty-six prescribed for a female birth.
(40) Fourteen unclean days instead of the seven prescribed for the birth of a male.
(41) Since even if the tumtum were a male, the unclean period prescribed for the birth of a male is completely absorbed by the longer one prescribed for the birth of a female (cf. prev. n.); and the same applies also to the clean period (cf. prev. n. but one).
(42) Lit., 'cut'.
(43) With its feet first.
(44) Lit., 'as soon as . . . issued'.
(45) Supra 25b.
(46) The tumtum or the androginos.
(47) Husband and wife.
(48) That other being the tumtum.
(49) Which resembles semen; a discharge that causes no uncleanness in a woman.
(50) Resembling menstrual blood, a discharge that causes no uncleanness in a man.
(51) The Heb. uses the plural throughout the passage.
(52) Since his uncleanness is a matter of doubt (cf. prev. two notes) and his sacrifice in connection with it would consequently be an unconsecrated beast which is forbidden to be offered on the altar.
(53) Which he touched.
(54) It must only be kept in suspense owing to the doubtful nature of its uncleanness.
(55) So that he is inevitably unclean whatever his sex.
(56) For the reason explained presently.
(57) Cf. prev. n. but one.
(58) This is a reason for the first ruling, why 'he incurs no guilt for entering the Sanctuary'.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 28b

shall ye put out,1 only a confirmed male or a confirmed female [shall ye put out], but not a tumtum or an androginos. May it be suggested that the following provides support for his2 view? [For it was taught:] 'If a tumtum or an androginos observed a white,3 or a red discharge, he incurs no obligation of an offering for entering the Sanctuary nor is terumah to be burnt on his account. If he observed a simultaneous discharge of white and red he incurs indeed no obligation of an offering for entering the Sanctuary but terumah must be burnt on his account'. Now is not the reason4 because it is said, Both male and female shall ye put out,5 which implies only a confirmed male and a confirmed female [shall ye put out] but not a tumtum or an androginos?6 - 'Ulla replied: No; this may represent the view of7 R. Eliezer.8 For we learnt: R. Eliezer stated, [It is written, If any one touch . . . the carcass of] unclean swarming things and . . . it being hidden from him,9 one incurs the obligation of an offering only when the unclean swarming thing is hidden from him10 but no offering is incurred when the Sanctuary is hidden from him.11 R. Akiba stated, [Scripture says:] It being hidden from him that he is unclean,9 one incurs the obligation of an offering only when it is 'hidden from him that he is unclean'10 but no offering is incurred when the Sanctuary is hidden from him.12 And when it was asked, 'What is the practical difference between them?'13 Hezekiah replied: The practical difference between them is [the case of a man who is uncertain whether he touched] a dead creeping thing or the carcass of a beast, R. Eliezer14 holding that it is necessary15 that a person shall know16 whether he had contracted uncleanness through a creeping thing or through the carcass of a beast, while R. Akiba17 maintains that this is not necessary.18 Now did not R. Eliezer state there18 that 'it is necessary that a person should know whether he contracted uncleanness through a creeping thing or the carcass of a beast'?19 Well here also20 it is necessary21 that the person22 should know whether he became unclean on account of the white discharge or an account of the red one; but according to R. Akiba who stated that a person incurs the obligation of an offering on account of uncleanness23 an offering would be incurred here20 also on account of the uncleanness.23 But, according to Rab, why is it that they22 incur no offering for entering the Sanctuary? Because [you say] it is written, Both male and female shall ye put out,24 which implies that only a confirmed male and a confirmed female [must be put out] but not a tumtum or an androginos. But, if so, terumah25 also should not be burnt, since it is written, And of them that have an issue, whether it be a man, or a woman,26 which implies27 does it not, that only a confirmed male and a confirmed female [is subject to the restrictions]28 but not a tumtum or an androginos?29 - That text26 is required for an exposition like the one made by R. Isaac; for R. Isaac stated: 'whether it be a man'26 includes30 a male leper as regards his sources,31 'or a woman'26 includes a female leper as regards her sources.32 But is not that text33 also required [for a deduction that the injunction34 applies only] to that which may attain cleanness in a ritual bath,35 thus excluding an earthenware vessel;36 so R. Jose?37 - If so38 the All Merciful should have written, 'man'.39 And should you retort that if the All Merciful had only written 'man' it might have been presumed that a metal vessel need not be sent out40 [it may be pointed out that this41 could have been] deduced from Whatsoever42 is unclean by the dead,43 what need then was there for the specification of 'male and female'? Obviously to deduce the same ruling as Rab did. Might it not then be suggested that the entire text served the same purpose as that to which Rab applied it?44 - If that were the case45 it should have been written, 'male and female' why then the expression 'both male and female'?46 'Both'47 consequently includes all objects that attain cleanness in a ritual bath. But if so,48 even if he49 became unclean through any other cause of uncleanness,50 he should not be sent out, should he?51 - Scripture said, 'from52 male' [implying that the text deals only with] an uncleanness that is discharged from the male.53 Does, however, any Scriptural expression of 'both male and female' serve to exclude the tumtum and the androginos? Surely in the case of valuations it is written, 'The male',54 and it was taught: 'The male'54 but no tumtum or androginos. As it might have been presumed that he is not subject to the valuation of a man but is subject to that of a woman it was explicitly stated. 'The male55 . . . And if it be a female'56 implying:57 Only a confirmed male and a confirmed female58 but no tumtum or androginos.59 Is not then the reason [for the exclusion]60 that it was written, 'The male55 . . . And if it be a female',56 but from the expression of 'male and female' alone neither61 could have been excluded?62 - That text63 is required

____________________
(1) Num. V, 3, a reference to the sending out of unclean persons from the Sanctuary (v. Rashi).
(2) Rab's.
(3) For notes v. supra on Rab's statement.
(4) For the first ruling (cf. supra n. 14). Lit., 'what is the reason? Not?'
(5) V. p. 193, n. 15.
(6) Does this then provide support for Rab's view?
(7) Lit., 'this, whose?'
(8) Who is of the opinion that no offering in connection with an uncleanness may be brought unless the person affected is fully aware of the actual cause of his uncleanness? Similarly in the case cited, since the actual cause of uncleanness is unknown to the tumtum or to the androginos, no obligation of an offering is incurred. The Rabbis, however, who differ from R. Eliezer in subjecting one to the obligation of an offering even where the actual cause of the uncleanness is unknown, would equally subject the tumtum and the androginos to the obligation of an offering in the case cited. As the halachah is in agreement with the Rabbis who are in the majority, no authoritative support for Rab's statement is forthcoming from this Baraitha.
(9) Lev. V, 2.
(10) Sc. when entering the Sanctuary the man forgot that he was unclean.
(11) Sc. he well remembered when entering the Sanctuary that he was unclean but forgot that it was the Sanctuary that he was entering.
(12) Shebu. 14b. Cf. prev. n.
(13) R. Eliezer and R. Akiba.
(14) Who explicitly mentioned 'unclean swarming thing'.
(15) If an offering is to be incurred.
(16) At the time he became unclean.
(17) Who merely speaks of uncleanness in general.
(18) Shebu. 18b.
(19) Of course he did.
(20) The case of a simultaneous discharge of red and white.
(21) If an offering is to be incurred.
(22) The tumtum or the androginos.
(23) Though the actual cause of it is unknown to him.
(24) Num. V, 3.
(25) Which they touched.
(26) Lev. XV, 33.
(27) As does the expression 'male and female' in Num. V, 3.
(28) Of the laws spoken of in the text.
(29) But this is, of course, absurd.
(30) Since the expression is not required for the context which spoke previously in general terms in the same verse 'of them that have an issue'.
(31) His mouth, for instance. Sc. not only is his body a primary uncleanness but, as the zab of which the text explicitly speaks, his spittle also is a primary uncleanness and may, therefore, impart uncleanness of the first grade to man and articles.
(32) Cf. prev. n. No further deduction, therefore, can be made from the same expression.
(33) Num. V, 3, from which deduction is made in the Mishnah cited from Shebu. 14b supra.
(34) To send out from the Temple court.
(35) As 'a male and female' may.
(36) Which cannot attain cleanness by immersion.
(37) 'Er. 104b. How then can Rab deduce his ruling from the very same text?
(38) That only the deduction just quoted was to be made.
(39) Heb. adam, which would have included both sexes and implied the deduction.
(40) And that it is for this reason that Scripture specified 'both male and female' in order to indicate (by the specific mention of the two sexes) that the deduction must have a reference to a law that applied to both sexes viz., the attainment of cleanness in a ritual bath, so that metal vessels also should be included.
(41) The law that an unclean metal vessel must also be sent out of the Temple court.
(42) E.V. 'whosoever'.
(43) Num. V, 2, emphasis on the first three words which include metal vessels also. The use of 'man', therefore, would inevitably have excluded earthen vessels.
(44) But, if so, whence is the deduction made that the same law applies to all that attain cleanness in a ritual bath?
(45) That only Rab's ruling is to be deduced.
(46) Lit., 'from male until female'.
(47) Heb, 'ad, lit. 'until'.
(48) That, as Rab laid down (supra 28a), a tumtum or an androginos who observed a red and a white discharge is exempt from the law requiring an unclean person to be sent out from the Temple court since he is neither a confirmed male nor a confirmed female.
(49) A tumtum or an androginos.
(50) By coming in contact with a corpse, for instance.
(51) But this surely is contrary to the accepted law.
(52) E.V., 'both'.
(53) Thus excluding one contracted from a foreign body.
(54) Lev. XXVII, 3.
(55) Cf. prev. n., emphasis on 'the'.
(56) Lev. XXVII, 4, emphasis on 'if'.
(57) By the additional 'the' and 'if' (cf. prev. nn.).
(58) Are subject to the valuations given.
(59) 'Ar 4b.
(60) Of the tumtum and the androginos from the valuations laid down.
(61) Cf. prev. n.
(62) How then could it be implied supra that 'any Scriptural expression of "both male and female" serves to exclude the tumtum etc.'?
(63) 'Male' and 'female' in the section of valuations.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 29a

to indicate a distinction between the valuation of a man and the valuation of a woman.1

IF THE EMBRYO ISSUED IN PIECES OR IN A REVERSED CONDITION etc. R. Eleazar ruled: Even if the head was with them;2 but R. Johanan ruled: This3 was learnt only in a case where the head was not with them but where the head was with them the embryo is deemed born.4 May it be suggested that they5 differ on a principle of Samuel for Samuel has laid down: The head6 does not exempt7 in the case of miscarriages?8 - Where it9 is whole there is no difference of opinion whatever;10 they only differ in a case where it9 issued in pieces, one Master11 holding the opinion that the head is of importance12 only where the miscarriage is whole but where it is in pieces it is of no importance, while the other Master12 holds that even where it9 is in pieces the head is of importance.13 There14 are some who teach this passage as an independent discussion:15 R. Eleazar ruled, The head16 has not the status of the greater part of the limbs17 but R. Johanan ruled: The head has the same status as the greater part of the limbs. They thus differ on the validity of Samuel's principle.18

We learnt: IF THE EMBRYO ISSUED IN PIECES OR IN A REVERSED POSITION IT IS DEEMED BORN AS SOON AS ITS GREATER PART ISSUED FORTH. Now since 'OR19 IN A REVERSED POSITION' was specifically stated it follows that 'IN PIECES' refers to one that issued in a normal position,20 and yet it was stated, IT IS DEEMED BORN AS SOON AS ITS GREATER PART ISSUED. Does not this then present an objection against R. Johanan? - R. Johanan can answer you: Read, ISSUED IN PIECES and IN A REVERSED POSITION. But was it not stated 'OR'?21 It is this that was meant: IF THE EMBRYO ISSUED IN PIECES OR whole, but in either case, IN A REVERSED POSITION, IT IS DEEMED BORN AS SOON AS ITS GREATER PART ISSUED FORTH. R. Papa stated, [This22 is] a matter of dispute between the following Tannas: 'If an embryo issued in pieces or in a reversed position it is deemed born as soon as its greater part issued forth. R. Jose ruled: Only when it issued in the normal way'. What does he23 mean? - R. Papa replied: It is this that was meant:24 If the embryo issued in pieces and in a reversed position25 it is deemed born as soon as its greater part issued forth, but [it follows] if it issued in the normal way20 the head alone26 causes exemption.27 R. Jose ruled: Only where its greater part issued in the normal manner.28 R. Zebid demurred:29 Thus it follows30 that where the embryo issued in a reversed position31 even the issue of its greater part causes no exemption,30 but surely, have we not an established rule that the greater part32 counts as the whole? Rather, said R. Zebid, it is this that was meant:33 If the embryo issued in pieces and in a reversed position it is deemed born as soon as its greater part issued forth, but [it follows] if it issued in the normal way the head alone causes exemption.27 R. Jose34 ruled: Only35 where it issued in the normal manner in a condition of viability.36 So it was also taught: If the embryo issued in pieces and37 in a reversed position it is deemed born as soon as its greater part issued forth, but, it follows, if it issued in the normal way the head alone causes exemption. R. Jose ruled: Only when it issued in the normal manner in a condition of viability. And what is 'the normal manner in a condition of viability'? The issue38 of the greater part of its head. And what is meant by 'the greater part of its head'? R. Jose39 said: The issue of its temples. Abba Hanan citing R. Joshua said: The issue of its forehead; and some say: The appearance40 of the corners of its head.41

MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN ABORTED AND42 IT IS UNKNOWN WHAT WAS [THE SEX OF THE EMBRYO] SHE MUST CONTINUE [HER PERIODS OF UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR BOTH A MALE CHILD43 AND A FEMALE CHILD.44 IF IT IS UNKNOWN WHETHER IT WAS A CHILD OR NOT, SHE MUST CONTINUE [HER PERIODS OF CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS AS] FOR A MALE AND A FEMALE45 AND AS A MENSTRUANT.46

GEMARA. R. Joshua b. Levi ruled: If a woman crossed a river and miscarried in it, she47 must bring a sacrifice which may 'be eaten, since we are guided by the nature of48 the majority of women and the majority of women bear normal children.

We learnt: IF IT IS UNKNOWN WHETHER IT WAS A CHILD OR NOT, SHE MUST CONTINUE [HER PERIODS OF CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS AS] FOR A MALE AND A FEMALE AND AS A MENSTRUANT. But49 why should she continue as a menstruant. Why should it not be said, 'Be guided by the nature of the majority of women and the majority of women bear normal children'.50 - Our Mishnah deals with a case where there was no presumption of the existence of an embryo,51 while R. Joshua b. Levi spoke of one where there was such presumption.

Come and hear: 'If a beast went out52 full53 and returned54 empty, the young that is born subsequently is deemed to be a firstling of a doubtful nature'.55 But49 why [should its nature be a matter of doubt]? [Why not] be guided by the majority of beasts and, since the majority of beasts bear normal young, this one also56 must be an ordinary beast?57 - Rabina replied, Because it may be said: Most beasts bear young that are exempt from the law of the firstling58 and a minority of them bear young that are not exempt from the law of the firstling but all that bear secrete,59 and in the case of this beast, since it did not secrete, the majority rule has been impaired. If, however, all that bear secrete, must not the young, since this beast did not secrete, be a valid firstling?60 - Rather say: Most of those that bear secrete, and in the case of this beast, since it did not secrete, the majority rule is impaired. When Rabin came61 he stated: 'R. Jose b. Hanina raised an objection62 [from a Baraitha dealing with] a forgetful woman,63 but I do not know what objection it was'. What was it? - It was taught:

____________________
(1) Hence the necessity for the additional 'the' and 'if' which serve the purpose of the deduction. In the text of Num. V, 3, however, the full expression of 'male and female', which could well have been condensed to 'man', clearly suggests the deduction made by Rab.
(2) With some of the pieces; sc. even in such a case the embryo is not deemed born unless ITS GREATER PART ISSUED FORTH.
(3) Cf. prev. n.
(4) V. marg. gl. Cur. edd. in parenthesis, 'the head exempts'.
(5) R. Eleazar and R. Johanan.
(6) Of a twin, if it was drawn back after it had been put out.
(7) The other twin (that was born first) from the duty of redemption (cf. Num. XVIII, 15, 16) even if it was viable.
(8) Bek. 46b. Does then R. Eleazar adopt Samuel's principle?
(9) The miscarriage.
(10) Both R. Eleazar and R. Johanan agree that the issue of the head alone suffices to constitute birth.
(11) R. Eleazar.
(12) Constituting birth. (22) R. Johanan.
(13) Constituting birth.
(14) Cur. edd. in parenthesis add; 'Another reading: The reason then is that it issued in pieces or in a reversed condition but if it issued in the normal manner the (putting out of the) head would have caused exemption. (Thus) both do not uphold Samuel's ruling, for Samuel said, The head does not exempt in the case of miscarriages'.
(15) Sc. not in connection with our Mishnah.
(16) Of a miscarriage.
(17) Its issue, therefore, constitutes no birth.
(18) R. Eleazar agreeing with Samuel while R. Johanan differs from him. According to the former version (which attaches the dispute to our Mishnah) it might be maintained (as has been submitted supra) that R. Eleazar also differs from him.
(19) Cf. Bah. Cur. edd. omit.
(20) Head first.
(21) How can 'or' be understood as 'and'?
(22) R. Johanan's ruling.
(23) R. Jose.
(24) By both the first Tanna and R. Jose.
(25) Feet foremost.
(26) Even if the body issued in pieces.
(27) Cf. n. supra, sc. the embryo is deemed to have been born, in agreement with the view of R. Johanan.
(28) Only then is the embryo deemed to have been born. According to R. Jose the issue of the greater part of the body (but with its feet first) or the lesser part (head first) constitutes no valid birth, since, wherever an embryo issued in pieces, both conditions are essential.
(29) Against R. Papa's explanation.
(30) Cf. prev. n. but one.
(31) Feet foremost.
(32) Or 'its majority'.
(33) By both the first Tanna and R. Jose.
(34) Objecting to the last clause (the inference).
(35) Only then does the issue of the head cause exemption.
(36) But not where the embryo issued in pieces when it cannot possibly live. In such a case the issue of the head constitutes no valid birth.
(37) So MS.M. Cur: edd. in parenthesis 'or'.
(38) Lit., 'when it went out'.
(39) MS.M., 'Nathan'.
(40) Lit., 'since they will appear'.
(41) The projection of the head above the neck (Rashi).
(42) Being known that the abortion was a child.
(43) In respect of cleanness: Only thirty-three days instead of sixty-six.
(44) Fourteen unclean days instead of seven.
(45) Cf. prev. two notes.
(46) Sc. if she observes a discharge of blood even during the 'thirty-three clean' days, she must be regarded as menstrually unclean, since it is possible that the abortion was no child at all in consequence of which she is not entitled to any of the privileges of childbirth.
(47) Though the abortion was lost in the water and it is unknown whether it was an embryo or a mere inflated sac.
(48) Lit., 'follow'.
(49) If R. Joshua b. Levi's argument is tenable.
(50) And consequently she ought to be entitled, at least, to the thirty-three clean days prescribed for a male birth (during which she is exempt from all menstrual uncleanness).
(51) The rule of the majority is consequently inapplicable.
(52) To the pasture.
(53) Pregnant.
(54) On the same day.
(55) Since it is unknown whether it followed the birth of a developed embryo, in which case it is no firstling, or the abortion of an inflated sac, in which case it is a valid firstling. A doubtful firstling may be eaten by its owner after it had contracted a blemish and the priest has no claim upon it.
(56) Having thus been born after the birth of a normal one.
(57) Not even a doubtful firstling, and its owner should consequently be allowed to eat it even if it had no blemish.
(58) Since each beast can only bear one firstling.
(59) A day prior to their delivery.
(60) Why then was it described as one of a doubtful nature?
(61) From Palestine to Babylon.
(62) Against R. Joshua b. Levi.
(63) Lit., 'erring', a woman who does not remember the time of her delivery; v. supra 18b.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 29b

If a woman who departed in a condition of pregnancy1 and returned2 without child3 spent, within our cognizance,4 three clean weeks5 and another ten weeks which were alternately unclean6 and clean,7 she may perform her marital duty on the night preceding the thirty-fifth day8 and she is ordered to undergo ninety-five ritual immersions;9 so Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel ruled: Thirty-five immersions.10 R. Jose son of R. Judah ruled: It suffices if one immersion is performed after the final [period of uncleanness]. Now11 one can well understand why the woman may not perform her marital duty during the first week,12 since she might be presumed to have given birth13 to a male child.14 During the second week she might be presumed to have given birth13 to a female child.15 During the third week she might be presumed to have given birth13 to a female child while she was in the condition of a zabah.16 But17 why should she18 not be permitted to perform her marital duty in the fourth week though she had observed a discharge of blood seeing that it is clean blood?19 Must it not then be admitted that the reason20 is because we are not guided here by the majority rule?21 - What then22 [is the justification for the statement] 'I do not know what objection it was'?-It might be presumed that her delivery took place a long time ago.23 But why should she not be allowed to perform her marital duty during the fifth week24 which25 is a clean one? - In the case of the fourth week26 every day might be regarded as being possibly the conclusion of [the clean days prescribed for] a childbirth and the beginning of the period of menstruation, so that the twenty-eighth day itself27 might be presumed to be the first day of the menstrual period and she must consequently continue [her uncleanness for] seven days in respect of her menstruation.28 But why should she not be permitted to perform her marital duty on the twenty-first day?29 - This30 is in agreement with the view of R. Simeon who ruled: It is forbidden to do so31 since, thereby, she32 might be involved in a doubtful uncleanness.33 But34 why should she not be permitted intercourse in the evening?35 - This is a case where she observed the discharge in the evening.36 'And she is ordered to undergo ninety-five ritual immersions: During the first week37 she is ordered immersion every night, since it might be presumed that she gave birth38 to a male child.39 During the second week she is ordered immersion every night,40 since it might be presumed that she gave birth41 to a female child;39 and every day, since it might also be presumed that she gave birth to a male child while she was in a condition of zibah.42 During the third week she is ordered immersion every day, since it might be presumed that she gave birth to a female child while she was in a state of zibah;43 and every night, because Beth Shammai follow the view they expressed elsewhere that one who performed immersion on a long day44 must again perform immersion [at its conclusion].45

____________________
(1) Lit., 'who went out full'.
(2) After some considerable time.
(3) Lit., 'empty'; and she was unaware when birth took place.
(4) Lit., 'and she brought before us'.
(5) Sc. having arrived in the day-time she experienced no discharge from the moment of her arrival for three weeks.
(6) I.e., experiencing a discharge on each of the seven days of the first alternate weeks.
(7) I.e., she experienced no discharge on any of the seven days of the second alternate weeks.
(8) Of her arrival, viz., the last night of the fifth week. After that night, however, as will be explained presently, no cohabitation can be allowed.
(9) One after each period of uncleanness as will be explained presently.
(10) Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
(11) Here begins the 'objection' to which Rabin referred (supra 29a ad fin.).
(12) After her return. 'First week' includes the day of her return.
(13) During her absence and immediately before her return.
(14) So that everyone of the first seven days might be one of the seven unclean days prescribed for a woman after a male childbirth.
(15) The period of uncleanness after whose birth is two weeks (cf. prev. n. mut. mut.).
(16) I.e., during the 'eleven days' that intervene between the menstrual periods. Since it is possible that she experienced painless discharges on three consecutive days during this period she must, in addition to the fourteen days (cf. prev. n.), wait a period of another seven clean days (irrespective of whether she did, or did not observe any discharge during the fourteen days) before she can attain to cleanness.
(17) If R. Joshua b. Levi's rule, that most women bear normal children, is tenable.
(18) Who was known to be pregnant before her departure (v. supra), and who must, therefore, (cf. prev. n.) be presumed to have given birth to a normal child.
(19) Since the fourth week is inevitably excluded from the unclean periods (seven days for a male and fourteen for a female) that follow childbirth, and included in the thirty-three clean days prescribed for a male birth.
(20) Why the woman is treated as unclean even during the fourth week.
(21) So that there is no presumption of the birth of any child and no consequent allowance of any period of clean blood. How then could R. Joshua b. Levi, contrary to this Baraitha, maintain that in such cases the majority rule is followed?
(22) In view of the forceful objection just advanced.
(23) And her clean blood period also has terminated long before the fourth week. The Baraitha would consequently present no objection against R. Joshua b. Levi, since the tenability of his majority rule in no way affects the uncleanness of the fourth week, while, as regards the imposition upon the woman of the obligation of the sacrifice prescribed for one after childbirth, the rule is in fact upheld even in this case.
(24) I.e., on any of its seven days and not only (as laid down supra) on the night preceding the last one (the thirty-fifth day).
(25) Since the ten weeks were alternately unclean and clean.
(26) On every day of which she suffered a discharge.
(27) The last day of the fourth week.
(28) Which, beginning on the last day of the fourth week, terminates on the sixth day of the fifth week. Hence the permissibility of marital duty (after due ritual immersion) on the night following that day (the one preceding the thirty-fifth day of her return). During the weeks that follow all intercourse would be forbidden, since each alternate 'clean' week might he regarded as the period of seven days that must be allowed to elapse after the zibah of the previous 'unclean' week before cleanness is attained.
(29) Of her return. This day (the last one of the third week) must inevitably be a clean one. For even if the woman had been delivered on the very day of her return her period of childbirth uncleanness would have terminated (even in the case of a female child) on the fourteenth day, while the seven days following could be counted as the prescribed seven days following a period of zibah on the last of which she is permitted to perform ritual immersion at any time of the day and to attain to a state of cleanness (cf. Yoma 6a) for the rest of that day.
(30) The prohibition of intercourse on the twenty-first day.
(31) To have intercourse on the seventh day after the termination of a zibah even though ritual immersion had been performed.
(32) If she happened to suffer a discharge later in the day after intercourse.
(33) Of zibah. A discharge on the seventh day following the termination of zibah renders void all the previous counting, since the seven clean days must be complete.
(34) Since on the twenty-first day she was still clean and her first discharge in the following (fourth) week occurred presumably on the twenty-second day.
(35) Following the twenty-first day.
(36) Cf. prev. n. And similarly in the case of all the alternate unclean weeks the discharges occurred in the evenings.
(37) After her return.
(38) Seven days previously.
(39) So that each day of the first week might possibly be the first one after the termination of the unclean days and it is a religious duty to perform ritual immersion immediately after the unclean days had terminated.
(40) Cf. Bah for a different reading.
(41) Fourteen days previously.
(42) So that each day of the first week counted as the sixth of the clean days after zibah which (cf. supra n. 5) must be immediately followed (during the day-time of the following day) by ritual immersion.
(43) Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
(44) The fourteen unclean days (after which the woman performs immersion) and the sixty-six clean days that follow (during which she is forbidden to eat terumah) are regarded as one long day on which immersion had been performed and sunset is awaited (sunset being represented by that of the eightieth day after childbirth) to complete and terminate ail traces of uncleanness.
(45) Sc. on the night following the eightieth day and preceding the eighty-first one. As every day of the third week might possibly be the eightieth, immersion must be performed on every night of that week. The same reason could, of course, be given for the necessity for immersion in the previous weeks had there been no other reasons to justify it.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 30a

Consider! How many1 are the days of cleanness?2 Sixty-six.3 Deduct4 the third week5 in which the woman was required to perform [nightly] immersions6 there remain sixty minus one. Now, sixty minus one and thirty-five7 are ninety-four, how then is the number of ninety-five obtained?8 - R. Jeremiah of Difti replied: This is a case, for instance, where the woman9 made her appearance before us at twilight,10 so that11 we impose upon her an additional immersion.12 According to Beth Hillel, however, who maintain that one who performed immersion on a long day13 requires no immersion [at the conclusion]14 how is the number thirty-five obtained?8 - Twenty-eight, as has been explained,15 while during the fifth week we require the woman to undergo immersion every night, since16 it might be assumed [that each day17 is the] last of the days of her menstruation.18 What need was there for the mention of ten weeks19 seeing that eight and a half20 would suffice?21 - Since he had to mention half a week he mentioned all of it, and since he had to mention an unclean week22 he also mentioned a clean one.23 But are there [not also the additional] immersions24 due to the possibility of the woman's being a zabah?25 They26 only count the immersions before intercourse27 but not those that follow. But according to Beth Shammai who28 count also the immersions that follow intercourse, why was no mention made of the immersions that are due to the possibility of the woman's being a zabah? - They29 only deal with immersions that are occasioned by childbirth but do not discuss those that are due to zibah. Is there then [no mention of the possibility that the woman might have] given birth to a child while she was in a condition of zibah?30 - They do take note of the 'possibility of a birth in a condition of zibah, but no note is taken of zibah alone. Why should not the woman perform immersion in the day-time of each of the days of the first week after she appeared before us, seeing that it is possible that her counting31 ended on that day?32 - This is in agreement with33 R. Akiba who ruled: It is required that the counting31 shall take place within our cognizance.34 But why should she not perform immersion at the end of the first week?35 - They do not discuss one day of a week. But why should she not perform immersion on the first day she comes to us, seeing that it is possible that she is awaiting a day for a day?36 - They deal with a major zabah37 but not with a minor one.38 Three rulings may thus be inferred: It may be inferred that it was R. Akiba who ruled that the counting39 must take place within our cognizance; and it may be inferred that it was R. Simeon who stated, 'The Sages have truly laid down that it is forbidden to do so since thereby she might be involved in a doubtful uncleanness';40 and it may also be inferred that it is a religious duty to perform immersion at the proper time.41 R. Jose son of R. Judah, however, ruled: It suffices if one immersion is performed after the final [period of uncleanness], and we do not uphold the view that it is a religious act to perform immersion at the proper time.41

MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN MISCARRIED ON THE FORTIETH DAY,42 SHE NEED NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE POSSIBILITY OF A VALID CHILDBIRTH; BUT IF ON THE FORTY-FIRST DAY,42 SHE MUST CONTINUE [HER PERIODS OF UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR BOTH A MALE AND A FEMALE43 AND AS FOR A MENSTRUANT.44 R. ISHMAEL RULED: [IF SHE MISCARRIED ON] THE FORTY-FIRST DAY42 SHE CONTINUES [HER PERIODS OF UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR A MALE45 AND AS FOR A MENSTRUANT, BUT IF ON THE EIGHTY-FIRST DAY SHE MUST CONTINUE [THESE PERIODS AS] FOR A MALE AND A FEMALE AND A MENSTRUANT; BECAUSE A MALE IS FULLY FASHIONED46 ON THE FORTY-FIRST DAY AND A FEMALE ON THE EIGHTY-FIRST DAY. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, MAINTAIN THAT BOTH THE FASHloning47 OF THE MALE AND THE FASHIONING47 OF THE FEMALE TAKE THE SAME COURSE, EACH LASTING FORTY-ONE DAYS.

GEMARA. Why was MALE mentioned?48 If in respect of the days of uncleanness, FEMALE was mentioned;49 and if in respect of the days of cleanness,50

____________________
(1) On the assumption that the birth was that of a female child.
(2) That follow the fourteen days of uncleanness, and the last day of which might be presumed to coincide with any of the days under discussion.
(3) So that during the presumed days of cleanness no more than sixty-six immersions can be expected owing to the presumption that each might possibly be the eightieth day.
(4) From these sixty-six days.
(5) Which comprises the first seven of these.
(6) On account of the same possibility that each was the eightieth day (in addition to her daily immersions necessitated by the possibility of her bearing in the condition of zibah).
(7) Seven during the first week and fourteen during the second as well as during the third week (7 + 2 X 14 = 7 + 28 = 35).
(8) Lit., 'what is their doing'.
(9) On her return.
(10) Of the day preceding the one from which the counting begins. As twilight is a time of doubtful day and doubtful night it cannot be definitely regarded as either.
(11) Owing to the doubt.
(12) Immediately after her appearance. That day, however, owing to the doubtful nature of twilight (cf. prev. n. but one) cannot be counted among the days and nights under discussion.
(13) Cf. p. 204, n. 10.
(14) So that in the third week (cf. supra 29b ad fin.) only seven immersions are to be performed, and these together with the fourteen of the second week and the seven of the first week only amount to twenty-eight.
(15) Cf. prev. n.
(16) Owing to her' 'daily discharge during the fourth week.
(17) Of the fifth week.
(18) Which may have begun on any of the days of the fourth week each of which might have been preceded by the last of the days of cleanness.
(19) Supra 29b ab init.
(20) In addition to the three clean weeks.
(21) To make up the number 80: 3 + 8 1/2 weeks = 11 1/2 weeks = 11 X 7 + 3 = 80 days.
(22) The ninth; the first of each pair of alternate weeks, commencing with the first, being assumed (cf. supra 29b ab init.) to be an unclean one.
(23) The tenth; being second of the last pair.
(24) Every day after the fourth week.
(25) During the preceding unclean week. Only in the case of the fourth week which has been preceded by clean weeks could no such immersions be expected.
(26) Beth Hillel. Lit., 'he'.
(27) On the night preceding the thirty-fifth day.
(28) Giving the number as ninety-five.
(29) Beth Shammai.
(30) Of course there is. How then could it be maintained that immersions due to zibah are not discussed?
(31) Of the seven days of menstruation.
(32) Why then was it stated (supra 29b ad fin.) that she performs immersion in the nights only?
(33) Lit., 'this whose?'
(34) No valid counting, therefore, is possible before a week had passed from the date of her return.
(35) The seventh day after her return, when the counting did take place within our cognizance.
(36) A clean day for an unclean one, sc. she might be within the period of the eleven days of zibah that intervene between the menstrual periods, during which she must perform immersion on the clean day following the one on which she experienced a discharge.
(37) The result of discharges on three consecutive days within the eleven days period (cf. prev. n.).
(38) Due to a discharge on one or two days only.
(39) Of the seven days of menstruation.
(40) Supra 29b ad fin. q. v. notes.
(41) I.e., at the earliest possible moment.
(42) After presumed conception.
(43) I.e., since it is possible that the abortion was the embryo of a child either male or female, the restrictions of both are imposed upon her but none of the relaxations of either.
(44) It being possible that the embryo was neither male nor female so that there was no valid childbirth.
(45) I.e., seven days of uncleanness even if there was no bleeding at the miscarriage.
(46) Lit., 'finished'.
(47) Lit., 'creation'.
(48) In the ruling, FOR BOTH A MALE AND A FEMALE AND AS FOR A MENSTRUANT.
(49) Whose fourteen days of uncleanness obviously absorb the seven unclean days of a male birth.
(50) Sc. that she is only entitled to the thirty-three clean days of the male and not to the sixty-six days of the female.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 30b

was not menstruant mentioned?1 - In order that if the woman observed a discharge on the thirty-fourth day2 and then observed one on the forty-first day3 she4 shall remain unclean5 until the forty-eighth day.6 And so also in respect [of the possible birth of] a female7 [the last word had to be mentioned] so that if she observed any blood on the seventy-fourth day and these again on the eighty-first day she shall remain unclean until the eighty-eighth day.8

R. ISHMAEL RULED: [IF SHE MISCARRled ON] THE FORTY-FIRST DAY SHE CONTINUES [HER PERIODS OF UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR A MALE AND AS FOR A MENSTRUANT etc. It was taught: R. Ishmael stated, Scripture prescribed uncleanness9 and cleanness10 in respect of a male11 and it also prescribed uncleanness12 and cleanness13 in respect of a female,14 as in the case of the former15 his fashioning period16 corresponds to his unclean and clean periods17 so also in the case of the latter18 her fashioning period19 corresponds to her unclean and clean periods.17 They20 replied: The duration of the fashioning period cannot be derived from that of uncleanness. Furthermore, they said to R. Ishmael, A story is told of Cleopatra the queen of Alexandria21 that when her handmaids were sentenced to death by royal decree they22 were subjected to a test23 and it was found that both [a male and a female embryo] were fully fashioned on the forty-first day. He replied: I bring you proof from the Torah and you bring proof from some fools! But what was his 'proof from the Torah'? If it was the argument, 'Scripture prescribed uncleanness and cleanness in respect of a male and it also prescribed uncleanness and cleanness in respect of a female etc.', have they not already replied, 'The duration of the fashioning period cannot be derived from that of uncleanness'? - The Scriptural text says, She bear,24 Scripture thus25 doubles the ante-natal period26 in the case of a female.27 But why [should the test spoken of by the Rabbis be described as] 'proof from some fools'? - It might be suggested that the conception of the female preceded that of the male by forty days.28 And the Rabbis?29 - They30 were made to drink31 a scattering drug32 And R. Ishmael?33 - Some constitution is insusceptible34 to a drug.35 Then said R. Ishmael to them:36 A story is told of Cleopatra the Grecian37 queen that when her handmaids were sentenced to death under a government order they were subjected to a test and it was found that a male embryo was fully fashioned on the forty-first day38 and a female embryo on the eighty-first day. They replied: No one adduces proof from fools. What is the reason?39 - It is possible that the handmaid with the female delayed40 [intercourse] for forty days and that it was only then that conception occurred.41 And R. Ishmael?42 - They were placed in the charge of a warden.43 And the Rabbis?44 - There is no guardian against unchastity;45 and the warden himself might have intercourse with them. But46 is it not possible that if a surgical operation had been performed on the forty-first day the female embryo also might have been found in a fully fashioned condition like the male?47 - Abaye replied: They48 were equal as far as these distinguishing marks were concerned.49

THE SAGES, HOWEVER, MAINTAIN THAT BOTH THE FASHIONING OF THE MALE AND THE FASHIONING OF THE FEMALE etc. Is not the ruling of the Sages identical with that of the first Tanna?50 And should you reply that the object51 was to indicate that the anonymous Mishnah represented the view of the Rabbis because when an individual is opposed by many the halachah is in agreement with the many, is not this52 obvious?53 - It might have been presumed that R. Ishmael's reason is acceptable since it is also supported by a Scriptural text,54 hence we were informed55 [that the halachah is in agreement with the Sages].56

R. Simlai delivered the following discourse: What does an embryo resemble when it is in the bowels of its mother? Folded writing tablets.57 Its hands rest on its two temples respectively, its two elbows on its two legs and its two heels against its buttocks. Its head lies between its knees, its mouth is closed and its navel is open, and it eats what its mother eats and drinks what its mother drinks, but produces no excrements because otherwise it might kill its mother. As soon, however, as it sees the light58 the closed organ59 opens and the open one60 closes, for if that had not happened the embryo could not live even one single hour. A light burns above its head and it looks and sees from one end of the world to the other, as it is said, then his lamp shined above my head, and by His light I walked through darkness.61 And do not be astonished at this, for a person sleeping here62 might see a dream in Spain. And there is no time in which a man enjoys greater happiness than in those days,63 for it is said, O that I were as the months of old, as in the days when God watched over me;64 now which are the days' that make up 'months'65 and do not make up years? The months of pregnancy of course.66 It is also taught all the Torah from beginning to end,67 for it is said, And he taught me, and said unto me: 'Let thy heart hold fast my words, keep my commandments and live',68 and it is also said, When the converse of God was upon my tent.69 Why the addition of70 'and it is also said'? - In case you might say that it was only the prophet who said that,71 come and hear 'when the converse of God was upon my tent.69 As soon as it, sees the light an angel approaches, slaps it on its mouth and causes it to forget all the Torah completely,67 as it is said, Sin coucheth at the door.72 It does not emerge from there before it is made to take an oath,73 as it is said, That unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear;74 'That unto Me every knee shall bow' refers to the day of dying of which it is said All they that go down to the dust shall kneel before Him;75 'Every tongue shall swear' refers to the day of birth of which it is said, He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart, who hath not taken My name76 in vain, and hath not sworn deceitfully.77 What is the nature of the oath that it is made to take? Be righteous, and be never wicked; and even if all the world tells you, You are righteous', consider yourself wicked.78 Always bear in mind79 that the Holy One, blessed be He, is pure, that his ministers are pure and that the soul which He gave you is pure; if you preserve it in purity, well and good, but if not, I will take it away from you. The school of R. Ishmael taught: This may be compared to the case of a priest who handled over some terumah to an 'am ha-arez and told him, 'If you preserve it under conditions of cleanness, well and good, but if not, I will burn it in your presence'. R. Eleazar

____________________
(1) Whose discharges of blood are invariably unclean whatever the day.
(2) When she is held to be unclean on account of possible menstruation, though the day is only (34 - 7 = 27) the twenty-seventh of the thirty-three clean days prescribed for a male birth.
(3) Which is the eighth day after the discharge on the thirty-fourth.
(4) Despite the previous assumption of menstruation on the thirty-fourth day, which would put the forty-first day outside the seven days of the menstruation period (when the observation of a discharge necessitates the waiting of no more than one single day).
(5) Lit., 'damaged'.
(6) It being assumed that the miscarriage was a male and that the thirty-fourth day was therefore still within the thirty-three clean days prescribed for a male birth, so that the second discharge on the forty-first day was the first menstrual one after the completion of the thirty-three clean days in consequence of which she must wait another seven days to complete the menstruation period. Her ritual immersion, therefore, cannot take place before (41 + 7 = 48) the forty-eighth day.
(7) I.e., the restrictions on account of this possibility imposed in our Mishnah.
(8) Cf. prev. nn. mut. mut.
(9) Seven days (Lev. XII, 2).
(10) Thirty-three days (ibid. 4).
(11) Making a total of forty days.
(12) Fourteen days (Lev. XII, 5).
(13) Sixty-six days (ibid.).
(14) A total of eighty days.
(15) Lit., 'when it prescribed uncleanness and cleanness in respect of the male'.
(16) Forty days.
(17) Lit., 'similarly'.
(18) Cf. prev. n. but two mut. mut.
(19) Eighty days.
(20) The Rabbis at the schoolhouse.
(21) Cur. edd. 'Alexandrus' (cf. Jast.). The following incident may have its origin in a legend that Cleopatra (68-30 B.C.E.) before committing suicide attempted various forms of execution on her slaves (cf. Golds.).
(22) Having forfeited their lives and being at her mercy.
(23) Fertilization and subsequent operation.
(24) Lev. XII, 5.
(25) By the superfluous expression of 'she bear' the omission of which could in no way have affected the sense of the text.
(26) In which the embryo is fashioned. Lit., 'added to her . . . another birth', sc. forty days in addition to the forty days during which a male embryo is fashioned.
(27) Which proves that the fashioning period of a female embryo is (40 + 40 =) 80 days.
(28) And that this was the reason why in the Cleopatra test both were found to be fully fashioned.
(29) How could they rely upon such inconclusive evidence?
(30) Cleopatra's handmaids.
(31) Before they were experimented on.
(32) I.e., destroying the semen in the womb.
(33) What objection then could he have put forward against the proof of the Rabbis?
(34) Lit., 'does not receive'.
(35) It was quite possible, therefore, that despite the drug the conception of the female took place forty days prior to that of the male.
(36) The Rabbis.
(37) Egypt in Cleopatra's reign was under the influence of Greek institutions and Greek culture.
(38) After conception.
(39) Why the incident cited should not be accepted as proof. MS.M. reads: 'What is the reason why no proof is adduced from fools?'
(40) Cf. Bah.
(41) The 'eighty-first day' was, therefore, in reality the forty-first one.
(42) How in view of this possibility can he maintain that the incident provides the required proof?
(43) Whose duty it was to prevent all intercourse except on one particular day.
(44) How in view of this safeguard could it be suggested that the conception of the female was delayed for forty days?
(45) Popular proverb.
(46) Since the test in respect of the female took place on the eighty-first day.
(47) An objection against R. Ishmael.
(48) The male and the female.
(49) Those of the male embryo on the fortieth day were like those of the female on the eighty-first.
(50) Who earlier in the Mishnah ruled that 'IF ON THE FORTY-FIRST DAY SHE MUST CONTINUE . . . FOR BOTH A MALE AND A FEMALE AND FOR A MENSTRUANT' from which it follows that a female also is fully fashioned on the forty-first day.
(51) Of repeating in the name of the Sages an earlier anonymous ruling.
(52) That the anonymous ruling is the view of the Rabbis.
(53) Of course it is, since all anonymous rulings generally represent the views of the majority of Sages and the halachah is in agreement with them.
(54) As quoted by R. Ishmael supra.
(55) By repeating the anonymous Mishnah in the name of the Sages.
(56) Despite R. Ishmael's argument and text.
(57) Pinkas, cf. **.
(58) Lit., 'went out to the air space of the world'.
(59) Its mouth.
(60) Navel.
(61) Job XXIX, 3.
(62) Babylon.
(63) Lit., 'and you have no days in which a man dwells in more happiness than in these days'.
(64) Job XXIX, 2.
(65) Lit., 'in which there are the months' (of bearing).
(66) Lit., 'be saying, these are the months of bearing'.
(67) Lit., 'all of it'.
(68) Prov. IV, 4.
(69) Job XXIX, 4.
(70) Lit., 'what'.
(71) So that it does not apply to other men.
(72) Gen. IV, 7.
(73) Its nature is described presently.
(74) Isa. XLV, 23.
(75) Ps. XXII, 30.
(76) So the kre. The kethib is 'his name.
(77) Ps. XXIV, 4.
(78) Lit., 'be in your eyes like a wicked man'.
(79) Lit., 'be knowing'.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 31a

observed: What is the Scriptural proof?1 From my mother's womb Thou art gozi.2 What is the proof that 'gozi' implies 'swearing'? - Because it is written, Swear [gozi] concerning thy naziriteship and cast away.3

R. Eleazar further stated: What does an embryo resemble when it is in its mother's bowels? A nut floating in a bowl of water. Should someone put his finger upon it, it would sink on the one side or on the other.

Our Rabbis taught: During the first three months4 the embryo occupies the lowest chamber, during the middle ones it occupies the middle chamber and during the last months it occupies the uppermost chamber; and when its time to emerge arrives it turns over and then emerges, and this is the cause of the woman's pains.5 This also agrees with what was taught:6 The pains of a female birth are more intense than those of a male birth. R. Eleazar further observed, 'What is the Scriptural proof for this?7 When I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth;8 it does not say 'dwelt' but 'curiously wrought'.9 Why are the pains of a female birth greater than those of a male birth? - The female emerges in the position she assumes during intercourse and the male emerges in the position he assumes during intercourse. The former, therefore, turns her face upwards10 while the latter11 need not turn his face.

Our Rabbis taught: During the first three months4 marital intercourse is injurious to the woman and it is also injurious to the child. During the middle ones it is injurious to the woman but beneficial for the child. During the last months it is beneficial for both the woman and the child, since on account of it the child becomes well-formed and of strong vitality.

One taught: He who indulges in marital intercourse on the ninetieth day4 is as though he had shed blood. But whence could one know this?12 - Rather, said Abaye, one carries on marital intercourse in the usual manner and the Lord preserveth the simple.13

Our Rabbis taught: There are three partners in man, the Holy One, blessed be He, his father and his mother. His father supplies the semen of the white substance out of which are formed the child's bones, sinews, nails, the brain in his head and the white in his eye; his mother supplies the semen of the red substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair, blood14 and the black of his eye; and the Holy One, blessed be He, gives him the spirit and the breath,15 beauty of features, eyesight, the power of hearing16 and the ability to speak17 and to walk,18 understanding and discernment. When his time to depart from the world approaches the Holy One, blessed be He, takes away his share and leaves the shares of his father and his mother with them. R. Papa observed: It is this that people have in mind when they say, 'Shake off the salt19 and cast the flesh to the dog'.20

R. Hinena b. Papa gave the following exposition: What is the purport of the Scriptural text, Who doeth great things past finding out,' yea, marvellous things without number?21 Come and see the contrast between the potency of the Holy One, blessed be He, and that of mortal man.22 A man might put his things23 in a skin bottle24 [whose holes25 are] tied up and whose orifice is turned upwards and yet it is doubtful whether [the things] would be preserved or not, whereas the Holy One, blessed be He, fashions the embryo in a woman's internal organ that is open and whose orifice is turned downwards and yet it is preserved. Another exposition: If a man puts his things on the scale of a balance, the heavier they are the lower the scale descends, whereas the Holy One, blessed be He, [fashioned the woman in such a manner that] the heavier the embryo the higher it rises.26

R. Jose the Galilean gave the following exposition: What is the purport of the Scriptural text, I will give thanks unto Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well?27 Come and see the contrast between the potency of the Holy One, blessed be He, and that of mortal man.28 If a man29 puts different seeds in a bed each grows in the manner of its own particular species, whereas the Holy One, blessed be He, fashions the embryo in the woman's bowels in such a manner that all30 grow into one and the same kind. Another exposition: If a dyer puts different ingredients into a boiler they all unite into one colour, whereas the Holy One, blessed be He, fashions the embryo in a woman's bowels in a manner that each element develops in its own natural way.31

R. Joseph gave the following exposition: What is the purport of the Scriptural text, I will give thanks unto Thee, O Lord; for though Thou wast angry with me, Thine anger is turned away, and Thou comfortest me.32 The text alludes to33 two men who set out on a trading expedition when a thorn got into [the foot of] one of them who34 began to blaspheme and to revile. After a time, however, when he heard that his friend's ship had sunk into the sea he35 began to laud and praise. Hence it is written, 'Thine anger is turned away, and Thou comfortest me'. This is indeed in line with what R. Eleazar stated: What is implied by the Scriptural text, Who doeth wondrous things alone;36 and blessed be His glorious name for ever?37 Even the person for whom a miracle is performed38 is unaware of the miracle.39

R. Hanina b. Papa made the following exposition: What is the implication of the Scriptural text, Thou measurest my going about and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways?40 It41 teaches that man is not fashioned from all the drop but only from its purest part. The school of R. Ishmael taught: This is analogous to the action of one who, winnowing42 in threshing floors, takes up the edible part and leaves the refuse. This is in agreement with an exposition of R. Abbahu. For R. Abbahu pointed out an incongruity: It is written, For Thou hast winnowed me from43 strength44 and it is also written,45 The God that girdeth me with strength!46 David in effect said to the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the world, Thou hast winnowed me47 and Thou hast girded me with strength'.

R. Abbahu also gave this exposition: What is the implication of the Scriptural text, Who hath counted the dust of Jacob, or numbered the stock of Israel?48 It teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, sits and counts the stock of Israel. 'When [He wonders] will appear the drop from which a righteous man could be fashioned'? Moreover, it is for this reason that the eye of the wicked Balaam was blinded. He said, 'Would He who is pure and holy and whose ministers are pure and holy look upon such a thing?' His eye was forthwith blinded, for it is written, And the saying of the man whose eye is closed.49 This is in line with what R. Johanan stated: What is the implication of the Scriptural text, And he lay with her in that night?50 It teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, assisted in that matter. For it is said, Issachar is a large-boned ass;51 it is the ass52 that has caused53 the birth of Issachar.

R. Isaac citing R. Ammi54 stated: If the woman emits her semen first she bears a male child; if the man emits his semen first she bears a female child; for it is said, If a woman emits semen55 and bear a man-child.56

Our Rabbis taught: At first it used to be said that 'if the woman emits her semen first she will bear a male, and if the man emits his semen first she will bear a female', but the Sages did not explain the reason, until R. Zadok came and explained it: These are the sons of Leah, whom she bore unto Jacob in Paddan-aram, with his daughter Dinah,57 Scripture thus ascribes the males to the females58 and the females to the males.59

And the sons of Ulam were mighty men of valour, archers; and had many sons, and sons' sons.60 Now is it within the power of man to increase61 the number of 'sons and sons' sons'? But the fact is that because

____________________
(1) That an oath is taken on the day of one's birth.
(2) Ps. LXXI, 6; E.V., Thou art He that took me out of my mother's womb.
(3) Jer. VII, 29; E.V., Cut off thy hair, and cast it away. .
(4) Of pregnancy.
(5) At a childbirth.
(6) So Bomb. ed. Cur. edd. 'we learnt'.
(7) That the embryo first occupies the lowest chamber.
(8) Ps. CXXXIX, 15.
(9) Implying the inception of the embryo; and this is stated to be 'in the lowest parts'.
(10) The turning intensifying the pains.
(11) Since the embryo is all the time lying face downwards.
(12) When the ninetieth day is.
(13) Ps. CXVI, 6; those who are unable to protect themselves.
(14) So MS.M. and Elijah Wilna. Cur. edd. omit.
(15) Or 'soul'.
(16) Lit., 'of the ear'.
(17) Lit., 'of the mouth'.
(18) Lit., 'walking of the feet'.
(19) Metaph. for the soul, 'the preserver of the human body'.
(20) Proverb. The lifeless body is of little more value.
(21) Job IX, 10.
(22) Lit., 'that not like the measure of . . . is the measure of flesh and blood'.
(23) Cf. MS.M. Cur. edd., 'the measure of flesh and blood he puts a thing'.
(24) Hemeth, a skin drawn off the body of the animal in such a manner as not to damage it except for the cuts at the tail and legs.
(25) Cf. prev. n.
(26) Beginning in the lowest chamber at conception it rises steadily to the highest, as stated supra.
(27) Ps. CXXXIX, 14.
(28) V. p. 214, n. 10.
(29) Cf. MS.M. Cur. edd. add, 'the measure of flesh and blood'.
(30) The semen of both parents.
(31) The one develops into bones, sinews, nails etc. while the other develops into skin, flesh etc., as stated supra.
(32) Isa. XII, 1.
(33) Lit., 'of what does Scripture speak? Of'.
(34) Having been compelled by the accident to interrupt his journey.
(35) Being gratified at the turn of events which prevented him from embarking on the disastrous expedition.
(36) Emphasis on 'alone'. E.V., Who only . . . things.
(37) Ps. LXXII, 18f.
(38) Lit., 'master of the miracle'.
(39) Only God alone knows it. Cf. prev. n. but two.
(40) Ps. CXXXIX, 3.
(41) The expression of zeritha ('Thou measureth') which coming from the root זרה, may be rendered, 'thou winnowest'.
(42) Cf. prev. n.
(43) E.V, 'girded me with'.
(44) II Sam. XXII, 40.
(45) In the corresponding passage.
(46) Ps. XVIII, 33.
(47) Cf. supra n. 2.
(48) Num. XXIII, 10.
(49) Ibid. XXIV, 3. E.V., 'is opened'.
(50) Gen. XXX, 16; emphasis on הוא.
(51) Ibid. XLIX, 14.
(52) On which Jacob rode and which stopped at Leah's tent.
(53) Garem ('large-boned') is derived from a root which in Aramaic signifies also 'to cause'. The consonants may be vocalized as garam. Hamor garam, 'the ass was the cause'.
(54) Var. lec. Assi ('En Jacob).
(55) E.V., 'be delivered'.
(56) Lev. XII, 2.
(57) Gen. XLVI, 15.
(58) 'Sons of Leah'.
(59) 'His daughter Dinah'.
(60) I Chron. VIII, 40.
(61) The Heb. for 'had many' is the Hif. of רבה which may be rendered 'cause to increase'.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 31b

they contained themselves during intercourse1 in order that their wives should emit their semen first so that their children shall be males, Scripture attributes to them the same merit as if they had themselves caused the increase of the number of their sons and sons' sons. This explains what R. Kattina said, 'I could make all my children to be males'. Raba stated: One who desires all his children to be males should cohabit twice in succession.

R. Isaac citing R. Ammi2 further stated: A woman conceives only immediately before her menstrual period, for it is said, Behold I was brought forth in iniquity;3 but R. Johanan stated: A woman conceives only immediately after her ritual immersion, for it is said, And in cleansing4 did my mother conceive me.5 What is the proof that 'het'6 bears the meaning of cleansing? - Since it is written 'we-hitte7 the house'8 and this is translated,9 'And so shall he cleanse the house'. And if you prefer I might reply: The proof is derived from the following: Purge10 me with hyssop and I shall be clean.11

R. Isaac citing R. Ammi further stated: As soon as a male comes into the world peace comes into the world, for it is said, Send ye a gift12 for the ruler of the land13 [and the Hebrew for] male14 [is composed of the consonants of the 'words for] 'this is a gift'.15

R. Isaac citing16 R. Ammi further stated: When a male comes into the world his provision comes with him, [the Hebrew for] male [zakar, being composed of the consonants of the words for] 'this is provision [zeh kar]',for it is written, And he prepared a great provision [kera] for them.17 A female has nothing with her, [the Hebrew for] female [nekebah] implying 'she comes with nothing' [nekiyyah ba'ah]. Unless she demands her food nothing is given to her, for it is written, Demand [nakebah]18 from19 me thy wages and I will give it.20 R. Simeon b. Yohai was asked by his disciples: Why did the Torah ordain that a woman after childbirth should bring a sacrifice? He replied: When she kneels in bearing she swears impetuously that she will have no intercourse with her husband. The Torah, therefore, ordained that she should bring a sacrifice. (R. Joseph demurred: Does she not21 act presumptuously22 in which case the absolution of the oath23 depends on her regretting it?24 Furthermore, she should25 have brought a sacrifice prescribed for an oath!)16 And why did the Torah ordain that in the case of a male [the woman is clean] after seven days and in that of a female after fourteen days? [On the birth of a] male with whom all rejoice she regrets her oath after seven days, [but on the birth of a female] about whom everybody is upset she regrets her oath after fourteen days. And why did the Torah ordain circumcision on the eighth day?26 In order that the guests27 shall not enjoy themselves28 while his father and mother are not in the mood for it.29 It was taught: R. Meir used to say, Why did the Torah ordain that the uncleanness of menstruation should continue for seven days? Because being in constant contact with his wife30 [a husband might] develop a loathing towards her. The Torah, therefore, ordained: Let her31 be unclean for seven days32 in order that33 she shall be beloved by her husband as at the time of her first entry into the bridal chamber.

R. Dostai son of R. Jannai was asked by his disciples: Why34 does a man go in search of a woman and no woman goes in search of a man? This is analogous to the case of a man who lost something. Who goes in search of what? He who lost the thing goes in search of what he lost.35 And why does the man lie face downwards and the woman face upwards towards the man? He [faces the elements] from which he was created36 and she [faces the man] from whom she was created.37 And why is a man easily pacified and a woman is not easily pacified? He [derives his nature] from the place from which he was created38 and she [derives hers] from the place from which she was created.39 Why is a woman's voice sweet and a man's voice is not sweet? He [derives his] from the place from which he was created40 and she [derives hers] from the place from which she was created.41 Thus it is said, For sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is comely.42

CHAPTER 4

MISHNAH. THE DAUGHTERS OF THE SAMARITANS43 ARE REGARDED AS MENSTRUANTS FROM THEIR CRADLE;44 AND THE SAMARITANS IMPART UNCLEANNESS TO A COUCH UNDERNEATH AS TO A COVER ABOVE,44 SINCE THEY COHABIT WITH MENSTRUANTS BECAUSE [THEIR WIVES] CONTINUE [UNCLEAN FOR SEVEN DAYS] ON ACCOUNT OF A DISCHARGE OF ANY BLOOD.45 ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR [UNCLEANNESS,]46 HOWEVER, NO OBLIGATION47 IS INCURRED FOR ENTRANCE INTO THE TEMPLE NOR IS TERUMAH48 BURNT ON THEIR ACCOUNT, SINCE THEIR UNCLEANNESS49 IS ONLY OF A DOUBTFUL NATURE.50

GEMARA. How is this51 to be imagined? If they52 observed a discharge, then53 even our daughters also [should in such circumstances be regarded as unclean]; and if they54 have not observed any discharge, their daughters also should not be regarded as unclean, should they? - Raba son of R. Aha son of R. Huna citing R. Shesheth replied: Here we are dealing with cases of which nothing definite is known, but since a minority exists that experience discharges, the possibility of such a discharge is taken into consideration. And who is the Tanna that55 takes a minority into consideration?

____________________
(1) Lit., in the belly'.
(2) Var. lec. Assi ('En Jacob).
(3) Ps. LI, 7. The last word is taken as an allusion to the menstruation period when intercourse is an iniquity' and the prefixed beth ('in') is rendered 'near'.
(4) E.V., 'sin'.
(5) Ps. LI, 7.
(6) The Heb. word here rendered 'cleansing' (E.V., 'sin').
(7) Of the same rt. as het.
(8) Lev. XIV, 52.
(9) I.e., by the Targum Onkelos.
(10) Tehate'eni (cf. prev. n. but one).
(11) Ps. LI, 9.
(12) Kar; E.V. 'lambs'.
(13) Isa. XVI, 1.
(14) Zakar.
(15) Zeh kar. Gifts foster peace.
(16) V. marg. gl. Cur. edd., 'the school of'.
(17) II Kings VI, 23.
(18) The same consonants as those for female (nekebah).
(19) E.V., 'appoint'.
(20) Gen. XXX, 28.
(21) When swearing.
(22) Of course she does.
(23) Lit., 'the thing'.
(24) It does. Now in such a case it is only a Sage who, after satisfying himself of the sincerity of her plea, may absolve her. A sacrifice, however, has no place here at all.
(25) Instead of the sacrifice of a bird prescribed for a woman after a confinement. (17) A lamb or a goat.
(26) After birth, and not on the seventh which is the last day of uncleanness
(27) Lit., 'all.'
(28) At the festive meal given in honour of the circumcision.
(29) Lit., 'sad', on account of the prohibition of intercourse which remains in force until the conclusion of the seventh day.
(30) Lit., 'with her'.
(31) Even after the least discharge of blood.
(32) When intimate intercourse is forbidden.
(33) By being deprived of her intimacy for certain recurrent periods.
(34) In matrimony.
(35) The rib from which Eve was built was taken from Adam.
(36) The earth.
(37) Cf. prev. n. but one.
(38) Earth, which yields.
(39) The unyielding bone of a rib.
(40) A beat upon the earth produces no note.
(41) A bone can be made to produce certain notes.
(42) Cant. II, 14.
(43) Kuthim, the people of Cutha and other places of Assyria who were transported to Samaria after the destruction of the northern kingdom and who combined their former idol-worship with a belief in the God of Israel (II Kings XVII, 24ff). Their descendants were for a time regarded as suspected Israelites and finally were entirely excluded from the community.
(44) This is explained in the Gemara infra.
(45) Even blood that is clean. Should a discharge of clean blood on one day be followed by one of unclean on the following day, the Samaritan woman would count the seven days of uncleanness from the first day, regarding the second discharge as having occurred within the seven days of menstruation, so that on the eighth day she regards herself as clean, while as a matter of fact her uncleanness began on the second day and continues for seven days, the last of which is the eighth from the first discharge on which she is still menstrually unclean.
(46) If a person, for instance, covered himself with the unclean articles mentioned.
(47) Of a sacrifice.
(48) That came in contact with these articles (cf. prev. n. but one).
(49) Though Rabbinically valid as a preventive measure.
(50) While a sacrifice and terumah are Pentateuchal. A Rabbinical rule can have no force where its observance involves interference with a Pentateuchal ordinance.
(51) The first clause of our Mishnah.
(52) THE DAUGHTERS OF THE SAMARITANS.
(53) Since menstruation may begin at the earliest stage of life (v. infra 32a).
(54) THE DAUGHTERS OF THE SAMARITANS.
(55) In respect of restriction.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 32a

- It is R. Meir. For it was taught: A minor, whether male or female, may neither perform, nor submit to halizah, nor contract levirate marriage; so R. Meir. They1 said to R. Meir: You spoke well when you ruled that they 'may neither perform, nor submit to halizah', since in the Pentateuchal section2 man3 was written, and we draw a comparison between woman and man.4 What, however, is the reason why they may not contract levirate marriage? He replied: Because a minor male might be found to be a saris;5 a minor female might be found to be incapable of procreation;6 and thus the law of incest7 would be violated where no religious act8 is thereby performed. And the Rabbis?9 - Follow the majority of minor males and the majority of minors are no sarisim; follow the majority of minor females, and the majority of minor females are not incapable of procreation.10 Might it not be suggested that R. Meir was heard [to take a minority into consideration only where that] minority is frequent; was he, however, heard [to maintain his view in regard to] an infrequent minority? - This also is a frequent minority, for it was taught: R. Jose stated, It happened at 'En Bol11 that the infant was made to undergo ritual immersion12 before her mother;13 and Rabbi stated, It once happened at Beth She'arim that the infant was made to undergo ritual immersion12 before her mother;13 and R. Joseph stated, It once happened at Pumbeditha that the infant was made to undergo ritual immersion12 before her mother;13 One can well understand the incidents spoken of by R. Joseph and Rabbi14 since [immersion was necessary as a protection for] the terumah15 of Palestine; but why was that necessary16 in the case spoken of by R. Joseph,17 seeing that Samuel had laid down: The terumah of a country outside the Land of Israel is not forbidden unless [it came in contact] with a person whose uncleanness emanated from his body,18 and this applies only to eating but not to contact?19 - Mar Zutra replied: This20 was required only in regard to anointing her with the oil of terumah;21 for it was taught: And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they set apart unto the Lord22 includes23 one who anoints oneself or drinks.24 But what need was there for a Scriptural text [for inclusion in the prohibition of] one who drinks, seeing that drinking is included in eating?25 - Rather [say that the text22 was intended] to include one who anoints oneself [in the same prohibition] as one who drinks.26 And if you prefer I might reply, The prohibition27 is derived from here: And it is come into his inward parts like water, and like oil into his bones.28 But if so29 should not our daughters also [be unclean from their cradle]? - For us who make a deduction of the use of 'and if a woman'30 instead of 'a woman' and [our daughters,] when observing any discharge are kept away,31 the Rabbis enacted no preventive measure; but as regards the Samaritans32 who do not make any deduction from the use of 'and if a woman'30 instead of 'a woman', and [their daughters] when observing any discharge are not kept away,31 the Rabbis enacted the preventive measure. What is the exposition of 'a woman', 'and if a woman'? - It was taught: [If it had been written,]33 'A woman', I would only know that a woman [is subject to the restrictions of menstrual uncleanness], whence could it be deduced that an infant one day old is also subject to the restrictions of menstruation? Hence it was explicitly stated, 'And if a woman'.33 Thus it is evident that in including a child Scripture included even one who is one day old. May not, however, an incongruity be pointed out: [If Scripture had only written,]34 'the woman' I would only know [that the restriction applies to] a woman, whence could it be derived that a child who is three years and one day old [is equally under the restrictions] in respect of cohabition? Hence it was explicitly stated, 'The woman also'?34 - Raba replied: These35 are traditional laws but the Rabbis tacked them on to Scriptural texts. Which one [can be deduced from] the Scriptural text and which is only a traditional law?36 If it be suggested that the law relating to an infant one day old is traditional and that the one relating to such as is three years and one day old is deduced from a Scriptural text,is not the text [it may be retorted] written in general terms?37 - Rather say: The law relating to one who is three years and one day old is traditional and the one derived from the text is that concerning an infant who is one day old. But since the former law is traditional, what was the purpose of the Scriptural text?38

____________________
(1) The Rabbis who disagreed with him.
(2) That deals with halizah.
(3) . Deut. XXV, 7; thus excluding the minor.
(4) As the latter must be a grown-up man so must the former be a grown-up woman.
(5) One wanting in generative powers. Only one capable of having a child to succeed in the name of his brother (Deut. XXV, 6) is subject to the duty of the levirate marriage.
(6) Cf. prev. n.
(7) Marriage with a brother's wife.
(8) Cf. prev. n. but two.
(9) How in view of R. Meir's reason can they maintain their view?
(10) Yeb. 61b.
(11) [Ain Ibl, north west of Safed, v. Klein S.. N. B. p. 41.]
(12) To protect any terumah which may come in contact with her.
(13) Whose immersion is performed on the fourteenth day. That of the menstruant takes place on the seventh.
(14) Both of which occurred in Palestinian towns.
(15) Which is rendered unfit through contact with a menstruant (cf. prev. n. but two).
(16) Lit., 'wherefore to me'.
(17) Which occurred in a Babylonian town.
(18) A zab, for instance, or a menstruant.
(19) Bek. 27a.
(20) The immersion of the infant spoken of by R. Joseph.
(21) Anointing being forbidden like eating.
(22) Lev. XXII, 15, in the section dealing with persons unclean for terumah.
(23) In the prohibition.
(24) Which proves that anointing is forbidden like eating.
(25) Cf. Shebu. 22b; and since eating was forbidden drinking also was obviously forbidden.
(26) Reading כשנתה instead of ואת השותה.
(27) Of anointing.
(28) Ps. CIX, 18.
(29) That in imposing a restriction a minority also must be taken into consideration.
(30) Lev. XV, 19, from which it is inferred infra that uncleanness may begin at infancy.
(31) From holy things, during the prescribed unclean period.
(32) Lit., 'they'.
(33) In Lev. XV, 19.
(34) Ibid. 18, dealing with uncleanness through cohabitation.
(35) The two restrictions under discussion.
(36) Sc. since Scripture uses the same expression we-ishah (rendered 'and if a woman' in Lev. XV, 19 and 'the woman also' ibid. 18) in both verses what age exactly was implied?
(37) And, since there is no reason why the age of three years and one day should be meant rather than that of two or of four years, the lowest possible age. vis., that of one day, should obviously be the one intended.
(38) Sc. why the additional waw in we-ishah?

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 32b

- To exclude a man from the uncleanness of a red discharge.1 But consider the following Baraitha:2 From the term of 'woman'3 I would only infer that a woman [is subject to the restriction of zibah], whence, however, could it be deduced that a female child that is ten days old4 is also subject to the restrictions of zibah? Hence it was explicitly stated, And if a woman.3 Now, what need was there for this text,5 seeing that the law could have been inferred from that of menstruation?6 - It was necessary. For if the All Merciful had written the law in regard to a menstruant only it might have been presumed that it applied only to the menstruant, since even if she observed a discharge on one day only she must continue unclean for seven days, but not to a zabah for whom, if she observed a discharge7 on one day, it suffices to wait only one day corresponding to it;8 hence the necessity for the second text. Then why should not the All Merciful write the law in regard to a zabah and there would be no need to give it again in regard to a menstruant, since one knows that there can be no zabah unless she was previously a menstruant? - That is so indeed. Then what was the need for the Scriptural text?9 - To exclude a man from the uncleanness of a red discharge.10 But was he not already once excluded?11 - One text serves to exclude him from the uncleanness of a discharge of red semen and the other from that of blood.

The same law12 applies also to males. For it was taught:13 'A man, a man',14 what need was there for the repetition of 'man'? To include a male child one day old who also is to be subject to the uncleanness of zibah; so R. Judah. R. Ishmael son of R. Johanan b. Beroka said: This15 is not necessary, for, surely, Scripture says, Whether it be a man or a woman,16 'whether it be a man' implies any one who is man, whether adult or infant; 'or a woman' implies any one who is a female irrespective of whether she is adult or minor. If so, why was it expressly stated, 'a man, a man'?17 The Torah used an ordinary form of speech.18 Thus it is evident that in including a child Scripture included even an infant one day old. Does not, however, an incongruity arise: [If Scripture had only written]19 'a man' I would only know [that the law applied to] a man, whence could it be derived that it also applies to a child who is nine years and one day old? Hence it was explicitly stated, And a man?19 - Raba replied: These20 are traditional laws but the Rabbis found props for them in Scriptural texts. Which one is only a traditional law and which can be deduced from the Scriptural text? If it be suggested that the law relating to an infant one day old is traditional and that relating to a child who is nine years and one day old is deduced from a Scriptural text, is not the text [it could be objected] written in general terms?21 - Rather say: The law relating to a child who is nine years and one day old is traditional and the one relating to an infant one day old is derived from the Scriptural text. But, since the former is a traditional law, what was the purpose of the Scriptural text? - To exclude a woman from the uncleanness of a white discharge. What need was there for Scripture to write [an additional word22 and letter]23 as regards males and females respectively?24 - These were necessary. For if the All Merciful had written the law in respect of males only it might have been presumed that it applied to them alone since they become unclean by [three] observations25 [on the same day] as by [three observations on three successive] days,26 but not to females who do not become unclean by [three] observations [on the same day] as by [three observations on three successive] days. And if the All Merciful had written the law in respect of females alone, it might have been presumed to apply to them only, since they become unclean even if a discharge was due to a mishap but not to males who do not become unclean when a discharge is due to a mishap.27 [The additional letters and words were, therefore,] necessary.

THE SAMARITANS IMPART UNCLEANNESS TO A COUCH UNDERNEATH AS TO A COVER ABOVE, What is meant by A COUCH UNDERNEATH AS A COVER ABOVE? If it be suggested to mean that if there were ten spreads28 and he sat upon them they all become unclean, is not this [it could be retorted] obvious seeing that he exercised pressure upon them?29 - The meaning rather is that a couch underneath one who had intercourse with a menstruant is subject to the same law of uncleanness as the cover above a zab.30 As the cover above a zab imparts uncleanness to foods and drinks only so does the couch underneath one who had intercourse with a menstruant impart uncleanness to foods and drinks only. Whence is the law concerning the cover above a zab deduced? - From the Scriptural text, And whosoever toucheth any thing that was under him shall be unclean.31 For what could be the meaning of 'under him'?

____________________
(1) Of semen (v. infra) which is similar in nature to the discharge dealt with in the text under discussion. Only a woman's is subject to uncleanness but not that of a man.
(2) Lit., 'and that which was taught'.
(3) Lev. XV, 25, dealing with zibah.
(4) One younger than ten days cannot possibly be subject to this form of uncleanness since one cannot be a confirmed zabah before the elapse of seven days of menstruation and three subsequent days on each of which a discharge is observed.
(5) Lit., 'wherefore to me'.
(6) Sc. since, as has been shown supra, an infant of one day is subject to the uncleanness of menstruation it naturally follows that on her tenth day (cf. prev. n. but one) she is also subject to that of zibah.
(7) After the seven days of menstruation.
(8) And if she observed a discharge on the second day also, she need only wait one day, after which she is clean. Only a discharge that continued for three consecutive days would subject her to the uncleanness of a confirmed zabah.
(9) The additional waw in the case of the menstruant.
(10) The text implying that only a woman is subject to the uncleanness of a red discharge but not a man.
(11) Supra.
(12) That a child one day old is subject to the uncleanness of a discharge as an adult.
(13) 'Ar. 3a.
(14) Lev. XV, 2, dealing with the laws of a zab. E.V., 'any man'.
(15) The exposition of Lev. XV, 2 (v. prev. n.).
(16) Lev. XV, 33.
(17) Lev. XV, 2 dealing with the laws of a zab. E.V., 'any man'.
(18) Lit., 'spoke as is the language of man'.
(19) Lev. XV, 16, in regard to the emission of semen.
(20) The law of zibah in respect of an infant one day old and the law of the emission of semen in regard to a boy who is nine years and one day old.
(21) Cf. supra p. 223, n. 8 mut. mut.
(22) Man.
(23) Waw ('and') in we-ishah.
(24) Sc. why could not the same ages of the male and of the female be derived from one another?
(25) Of discharges.
(26) Cf. B.K. 24a.
(27) Infra 36b.
(28) One above the other.
(29) Midras (v. Glos.) is one of the means whereby a zab conveys uncleanness.
(30) And not as the couch under him which imparts uncleanness to human beings also.
(31) Lev. XV, 10.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 33a

If it be suggested: Under the zab [it could be objected: This]1 is derived from, And whosoever toucheth his bed.2 Consequently it must mean: Whosoever toucheth any thing under which the zab was';3 and this is4 the cover above the zab,5 Scripture6 segregated it from a grave uncleanness7 and transferred it to a lighter uncleanness in order to tell you that it imparts uncleanness to foods and drinks only.8 Might it not be suggested that Scripture segregated it from the grave uncleanness only in order that it shall not impart uncleanness to a man9 and thereby also impart uncleanness to his clothes, but that it does impart uncleanness to a man9 or to clothes?10 - Scripture said: Shall be unclean,11 which implies12 an uncleanness of a lighter character, And whence is the law concerning the couch beneath one who had intercourse with a menstruant deduced? - From what was taught: And her impurity be upon him.13 As it might have been presumed that he is released from his uncleanness as soon as he is released,14 it was explicitly stated, He shall be unclean seven days.13 Then why was it explicitly stated, 'And her impurity be upon him'? As it might have been presumed that he imparts no uncleanness to man or earthenware, it was explicitly stated, 'And her impurity be upon him',13 as she imparts uncleanness to man15 and to earthenware16 so does he impart uncleanness to man15 and earthenware.16 In case it might be suggested:17 As she causes a couch or a seat to become unclean so as to impart uncleanness to a man and thereby also impart uncleanness to his clothes, so does he also cause his couch and seat to impart uncleanness to man and thereby impart uncleanness to his clothes, it was explicitly stated: And every bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.18 For19 it should not have been stated. 'and every bed on which he lieth shall be unclean', then why was it written, 'And every bed on which etc.'? Scripture has, thereby, segregated it from a grave uncleanness20 and transferred it to a lighter uncleanness, to tell you that it imparts uncleanness to foods and drinks only. R. Ahai demurred: Might it not be suggested that Scripture had segregated it from a grave uncleanness and transferred it to a lighter uncleanness only in order that it shall not impart uncleanness to a man and thereby also convey it to his clothes, but that it does impart uncleanness to a man21 or to clothes?22 - R. Assi replied: Shall be unclean23 implies24 an uncleanness of a lighter nature. Might it not be argued: 'And her impurity be upon him'18 is a generalization, 'and every bed'18 is a specification25 and, since the scope of a generalization when followed by a specialization already comprehended in it is limited by the thing specified, only26 a bed and a seat, but no other thing should convey uncleanness? - Abaye replied: 'He shall be unclean for seven days'18 makes a break in the context, so that this is a case of a generalization and a specification that are distant from one another and whenever a generalization and a specification are distant from one another the rule of generalization and specification does not apply. Raba replied: The rule27 in fact does apply, but the expression of 'and every'18 is an extension.28 R. Jacob demurred: Might it not be argued that he29 is30 subject to the same uncleanness as she in this respect: As in her case no distinction is made between her touch and her bed as regards the conveyance of uncleanness to a person and to his clothes, thus adopting the stricter course,31 so also in his case no distinction should be made between his touch and his bed as regards the conveyance of uncleanness to a person and to his clothes, the lenient course being adopted?32 - Raba replied:33 'Upon him' implies: To put a load upon him.34

SINCE THEY COHABIT WITH MENSTRUANTS etc. Do they all35 cohabit with menstruants? - R. Isaac of Magdala replied: This was learnt about married persons only.

BECAUSE [THEIR WIVES] CONTINUE [UNCLEAN FOR SEVEN DAYS] ON ACCOUNT OF A DISCHARGE OF ANY BLOOD etc. It was taught: R. Meir stated, If they continue [unclean for seven days] on account of a discharge of any blood,36 is not this37 rather an important safeguard for them? But the fact is that when they observe a discharge of red blood they treat it as supplementary to a previous discharge of yellow blood.38 Another explanation: She includes the day on which her discharge ceases39 in the number of the seven days.40 Rami b. Hama demurred: Why indeed should she not count it,41 and why should not we also count it,41 seeing that we have an established rule that part of a day is regarded as the whole of it? - Raba retorted: If so,42 how could it be possible for an emission of semen to cause the counting43 after a zibah to be void seeing that a part of the day is to be counted as the whole of it?44 If one had observed the discharge in the middle of the day the law might indeed be so,45 but here we might be dealing with one who observed the discharge near sunset?46 - Could it then definitely be assumed that47 the Scriptural text was written only [in regard to a discharge] near sunset? - Yes; you must indeed allow the text to be so explained, for it48 forces this interpretation upon itself.

Rami b. Hama enquired: If a woman49 ejected some semen;50 does she cause her counting51 after a zibah to be void? Is she regarded as one who observed an emission of semen and causes, therefore, the counting51 to be void

____________________
(1) Since it is midras (cf. Prev. n. but two).
(2) Lev. XV, 5.
(3) The Heb, yiheyeh tahtaw may be rendered as E.V. 'that was under him' as well as 'under which he (the zab) was'.
(4) Lit., 'and what is it',
(5) Cf. Rashal and Rashi. Cur. edd. in parenthesis add: 'And he who carries shall also be unclean; and what is that? What is being carried. What is the reason? It is written: And that which is carried'.
(6) By separating the law of touching from that of carrying with the expression of 'shall be unclean'.
(7) Carrying which imparts uncleanness to a person as well as to his clothes.
(8) But not to a person.
(9) Who touches it.
(10) That came in direct contact with it.
(11) Lev. XV, 10.
(12) Since the washing of garments was not mentioned in that part of the verse.
(13) Lev. XV, 24.
(14) Lit., 'he shall go up at her foot'. sc. if, for instance, on the sixth day of her uncleanness he became unclean through her he should become clean on the following day (which is her seventh day) on which she is released from her uncleanness.
(15) And to the clothes he wears.
(16) By heset (v. Glos.).
(17) Lit., 'if'.
(18) Lev, XV, 24.
(19) Since it was written, 'and her impurity be upon him' and about her it is written, that one who touches her bed must wash his garments.
(20) That of the couch of the menstruant which imparts uncleanness to a person as well as to the clothes he wears.
(21) Who touches it.
(22) That came in direct contact with it.
(23) Lev. XV, 10.
(24) Since the washing of garments was not mentioned in that part of the verse.
(25) Of the same general rule.
(26) Lit., 'yes'.
(27) Of generalization followed by a specification.
(28) Of the general rule. The rule of generalization and specification does not, therefore, apply here.
(29) Who cohabits with a menstruant.
(30) Since the man and the woman were compared.
(31) Sc. that both the person and his clothes are unclean.
(32) Viz., that neither his person nor his clothes contract uncleanness.
(33) Var. lec. Scripture said.
(34) I.e., in his case too the stricter course must be adopted.
(35) Sc. married and unmarried men.
(36) Whether clean or unclean.
(37) The counting of seven days after each discharge whose colour differed from the previous one.
(38) Cf. relevant n. on our Mishnah.
(39) Sc. the third day of three consecutive days (after the termination of her period of menstruation) on each of which she experienced a discharge and in consequence of which, she is a confirmed zabah.
(40) While in the case of a zabah the law requires seven full days clear of any discharge whatsoever.
(41) As one of the seven clean days.
(42) That as regards the counting of the clean days after zibah a part of a day could be regarded as the whole of it.
(43) Of any one of the seven days (cf. supra 22a).
(44) And a part of the day presumably remains after the emission.
(45) The remaining part of the day being counted as a full day and the counting of the seven days is in no way interrupted.
(46) So that no part of the day remained,
(47) Lit., 'and let him arise and say to him to'.
(48) In view of the accepted rule that part of a day counts as the whole of it.
(49) Who had intercourse during her zibah.
(50) While she was counting her clean days after her zibah had terminated.
(51) Of the one day on which the ejection occurred.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 33b

or is she rather regarded as one who merely touched it and, therefore, she does not cause the counting to be void? - Raba replied, His error is as deep as his subtlety: Granted that she causes her counting to be void, how many days could be affected? Should it be suggested that the counting of all the seven days should be void [it could be objected]: Is it not enough that she is treated like the man who had the intercourse with her?1 Should it be suggested that she should cause the counting of one day to be void [it could be retorted:] Did not the All Merciful say, And after that she shall be clean,2 'after' means after all of them, implying that no uncleanness3 may intervene between them? - But according to your view, how could a zab himself cause the counting of one day to be void seeing that the All Merciful said, He shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing.4 which implies that no uncleanness must intervene between them?5 What then have you to say in reply? That the meaning is that only the uncleanness of zibah must not intervene between them;6 well, here also it may be explained that the meaning is that only the uncleanness of zibah must not intervene between them.7

ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR [UNCLEANNESS]. HOWEVER, NO OBLIGATION IS INCURRED FOR ENTRANCE INTO THE TEMPLE etc. R. Papa once visited Tuak8 when he remarked, 'If there lives a scholar in this place I would go and pay him my respects'.9 'A scholar lives here', said an old woman to him, 'and his name is R. Samuel and he learns Tannaitic traditions. May it be God's will that you be like him'. 'Since',he thought. 'she blesses me by him I can gather10 that he is a God11 -fearing man'. He thereupon visited him when the latter treated him to12 a bull; and he also treated him to an incongruity13 between Tannaitic teachings: We have learnt, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR [UNCLEANNESS]. HOWEVER, NO OBLIGATION IS INCURRED FOR ENTRANCE INTO THE TEMPLE NOR IS TERUMAH BURNT ON THEIR ACCOUNT, SINCE THEIR14 UNCLEANNESS IS ONLY OF A DOUBTFUL NATURE, from which it is evident that terumah is not burnt in a case of doubt. But have we not learnt to the contrary: In six doubtful cases of uncleanness is terumah burnt [and one of them is] the doubtful uncleanness of the clothes of an 'am ha-arez?15 - 'May it be God's will', exclaimed R. Papa, 'that this bull shall be eaten in peace:16 Here17 we are dealing with the case of a Samaritan who was a haber'.18 'But would you presume19 [the other retorted] that a Samaritan who is a haber had intercourse with a menstruant?' When he left him20 and came to R. Shimi b. Ashi the latter said to him: Why did you not answer him [that our Mishnah21 deals] with the case of a Samaritan who, having performed ritual immersion, came up and trod upon the clothes22 of a haber and the clothes22 of this haber then came in contact with terumah,23 so that if [the terumah were to be treated as unclean] on account of the uncleanness of the 'am ha-arez [it could be objected]: He has, surely, performed ritual immersion.24 And if the uncleanness were to be attributed to his likely intercourse with a menstruant [it could be objected]: It is doubtful whether he had his intercourse recently or some time ago.25 And even if you were to find some ground for assuming that his intercourse took place recently there is still the doubt whether she had completed her period of cleanness for yellow blood or not.26 This then is a case of double doubt,27 and no terumah may be burnt on account of a doubly doubtful uncleanness. But why should not the uncleanness of the terumah be established28 on account of its contact with the clothes of an 'am ha-arez, a Master having stated: The clothes of an 'am ha-arez are like midras uncleanness29 to Pharisees?30 - The other replied: This is a case of a naked Samaritan.

MISHNAH. THE DAUGHTERS OF THE SADDUCEES, SO LONG AS THEY ARE IN THE HABIT OF WALKING IN THE PATHS OF THEIR FATHERS, ARE TO BE REGARDED AS SAMARITAN WOMEN, IF THEY LEFT THOSE PATHS31 TO 'WALK IN THE PATHS OF ISRAEL. THEY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS ISRAELITISH WOMEN. R. JOSE RULED: THEY ARE ALWAYS REGARDED AS ISRAELITISH WOMEN UNLESS THEY LEAVE THE PATHS OF ISRAEL TO WALK IN THE PATHS OF THEIR FATHERS.

GEMARA. The question was raised: What is the law32 where their attitude is unknown?33 - Come and hear: THE DAUGHTERS OF THE SADDUCEES, SO LONG AS THEY ARE IN THE HABIT OF WALKING IN THE PATHS OF THEIR FATHERS, ARE TO BE REGARDED AS SAMARITAN WOMEN; from which it follows that if their attitude is unknown they are like Israelitish women. Read then the final clause: IF THEY LEFT THESE PATHS TO WALK IN THE PATHS OF ISRAEL, THEY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS ISRAELITISH WOMEN; from which it follows that if their attitude is unknown they are like Samaritan women! But the fact is that no inference may be drawn from this [Mishnah].

Come and hear what we have learnt: R. JOSE RULED, THEY ARE ALWAYS REGARDED AS ISRAELITISH WOMEN UNLESS THEY LEAVE THE PATHS OF ISRAEL TO WALK IN THE PATHS OF THEIR FATHERS. Thus it follows that the first Tanna34 holds that when their attitude is unknown they are to be regarded as Samaritan women. This is conclusive.

Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that a Sadducee was conversing with a High Priest in the market place when some spittle was squirted from his mouth and fell on the clothes of the High Priest. The face of the High Priest35 turned yellow and he hurried to his36 wife37 who assured him that although they were wives of Sadducees they paid homage to the Pharisees and showed their blood to the Sages.38 R. Jose observed: We39 know them better than anybody else [and can testify] that they show their menstrual blood to the Sages. There was only one exception, a woman who lived in our neighbourhood who did not show her blood to the Sages but she died. But why was he40 not concerned about the uncleanness41 that is occasioned by the spittle of an 'am ha-arez?42 - Abaye replied: This was a case of a Sadducee who was a haber.43 Said Raba: Is a Sadducee who is a haber presumed44 to have intercourse with a menstruant? Rather, said Raba:

____________________
(1) If a man who was a zab emitted semen on one of the seven clean days following a zibah he loses that day only.
(2) Lev, XV, 28.
(3) Even that of one day.
(4) Lev. XV, 13.
(5) The seven days. How then is he allowed to interrupt his seven days by the exclusion of the day on which he emitted semen?
(6) Sc. if there was such an intervention, all the days counted are void and another seven days must be counted.
(7) The uncleanness of an emission of semen, however, is not regarded as an intervention.
(8) Near Naresh, the home of R. Papa not far from Sura, v. Obermeyer. p. 208.
(9) Lit., 'I will receive his countenance'.
(10) Lit., 'infer from it'.
(11) Lit., 'heaven'.
(12) Lit., 'cast down for him', sc. had it slaughtered to prepare a feast in his honour.
(13) Lit., 'cast for him', (cf. prev. n.).
(14) So our Mishnah. The reading here is 'her'.
(15) That came in contact with the terumah; Toh. IV, 5. As a Samaritan is presumably in the same category why is the terumah spoken of in our Mishnah not to be burnt?
(16) Sc. that the feast shall not be disturbed by his inability to reconcile the apparent contradiction.
(17) In our Mishnah.
(18) Whose clothes could not be suspected of any uncleanness.
(19) Lit., 'make'.
(20) Rashi: He left his host because he embarrassed him.
(21) According to which terumah is not burnt on account of its contact with a couch that was underneath a Samaritan.
(22) Sc. the bed clothes, a couch.
(23) The terumah thus coming in contact with midras uncleanness.
(24) Whereby his uncleanness came to an end.
(25) In the latter case his uncleanness may have terminated before he performed the immersion and he is now clean.
(26) It is quite possible that she counted her clean days after a discharge of unclean blood.
(27) Lit., 'a doubt of a doubt',
(28) Lit., 'and let it go out for him'.
(29) As midras conveys uncleanness to man and clothes so do the clothes of an 'am ha-arez.
(30) Who were meticulous in the observance of the laws of cleanness, Hag. 18b.
(31) Lit., 'they separated'.
(32) According' to the first Tanna who ruled: IF THEY ARE IN THE HABIT OF WALKING IN THE PATHS OF THEIR FATHERS THEY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS SAMARITAN WOMEN and IF THEY LEFT THESE PATHS for THE PATHS OF ISRAEL THEY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS ISRAELITISH WOMEN.
(33) Are they then regarded as Samaritan, or as Israelitish women?
(34) Who obviously differs from R. Jose.
(35) Who was afraid that the Sadducee may have been unclean owing to intercourse with his menstruant wife and that his spittle consequently conveyed uncleanness to the clothes on which it fell.
(36) The Sadducee's.
(37) To ascertain whether she observed the laws of menstruation and knew the distinction between clean and unclean blood.
(38) Who gave their decisions in accordance with the rulings of the Pharisees.
(39) Who live in their neighbourhood.
(40) The High Priest.
(41) Lit., 'and let it go out to him'.
(42) Even if he is not suspected of intercourse with a menstruant.
(43) V. Glos.
(44) Lit., 'you make',

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 34a

The incident occurred during a festival and the uncleanness of an 'am ha-arez1 during a festival the Rabbis treated as clean; for it is written, So all the men of Israel were gathered again against the city, knit together2 as one man,3 the text thus treated them all4 as haberim.5

MISHNAH. THE BLOOD6 OF AN IDOLATRESS AND THE CLEAN BLOOD7 OF A LEPROUS WOMAN, BETH SHAMMAI DECLARE CLEAN8 AND BETH HILLEL HOLD THAT IT IS LIKE HER SPITTLE OR HER URINE,9 THE BLOOD OF A WOMAN AFTER CHILDBIRTH WHO DID NOT10 UNDERGO RITUAL IMMERSION, BETH SHAMMAI RULED, IS LIKE HER SPITTLE OR HER URINE,9 BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY, THEY11 AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT IF SHE GAVE BIRTH WHILE IN ZIBAH, IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY.

GEMARA. But do not Beth Shammai uphold the tradition: Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, when any man hath an issue,12 only the children of Israel convey uncleanness by zibah and idolaters do not convey uncleanness by zibah, but a preventive measure has been enacted against them that they should be regarded as zabim in all respects?13 - Beth Shammai can answer you:14 How should it act? If it were to convey uncleanness both when wet and when dry, you would treat it as a Pentateuchal uncleanness.15 If it were to convey uncleanness only when wet and not when dry, you might also make the same distinction in a Pentateuchal uncleanness.16 If so, should not the same provision17 be made in the case of her spittle and her urine also?18 - Since a distinguishing rule has been laid down in regard to her blood19 it is sufficiently known that her spittle and her urine are only Rabbinically unclean. And why should no distinguishing rule be laid down in respect of her spittle or her urine while her blood should be ruled to be unclean? - Concerning her spittle and her urine, since they are frequently discharged, the Rabbis have enacted a preventive measure, but concerning her blood which is not frequently discharged the Rabbis have enacted no preventive measure.

Raba ruled: His20 discharge' in zibah is unclean21 even according to Beth Shammai22 and his discharge of semen is clean even according to Beth Hillel.23 'His discharge in zibah is unclean even according to Beth Shammai' since a distinguishing rule24 can be made in connection with the discharge of his semen. 'His discharge of semen is clean even according to Beth Hillel', since the Rabbis have enacted a distinguishing rule24 in order that terumah or other holy things shall not be burnt on its account.25 But why should not the distinguishing rule be enacted in regard to his discharge in zibah while his discharge of semen should be declared unclean? - Concerning his discharge in zibah which is not dependent on an act of his the Rabbis have enacted a preventive measure, but concerning a discharge of his semen which does depend on an act of his26 the Rabbis enacted no preventive measure.

May it be suggested that the following provides support to his27 ruling: If an idolatress discharged the semen of an Israelite, it is unclean; but if the daughter of an Israelite discharged the semen of an idolater, it is clean.28 Now does not this mean that it is completely clean?29 - No; clean Pentateuchally but unclean Rabbinically. Come and hear: It thus follows30 that the semen of an Israelite is unclean everywhere,

____________________
(1) Who was no Sadducee and whose wife as a rule properly observed the laws of menstruation.
(2) Haberim, plural of haber.
(3) Judges XX, 11.
(4) When assembled together. as is also the case on a festival.
(5) Cf. prev. n. but two. Haberim meticulously observe all the laws of uncleanness.
(6) Cf. Lev. XV, 19 and 25.
(7) The blood of purification (Lev. XII, 5).
(8) This is discussed in the Gemara infra.
(9) Which conveys uncleanness when wet but not when dry.
(10) Seven days after the birth of a male child or fourteen days after that of a female child (cf. Lev. XII, 2, 5).
(11) Beth Shammai.
(12) Lev, XV, 2.
(13) Shab. 83a; how then could Beth Shammai in our Mishnah declare their blood clean?
(14) So Maharsha and old edd. Cur. edd. insert in parenthesis 'that was stated about males, for if about females'.
(15) And this might lead to the erroneous assumption that it also causes the burning of terumah and other sacred things.
(16) That of an Israelite woman. By ruling that it is clean such erroneous conclusions are avoided.
(17) To regard it as clean.
(18) Since otherwise the same erroneous conclusion might be drawn.
(19) By imposing upon it an uncleanness that is less restrictive than that of Pentateuchal uncleanness.
(20) An idolater's.
(21) Conveying it by contact.
(22) Who in our Mishnah relax the law in regard to an idolatrous woman.
(23) Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
(24) Whereby it is indicated that the uncleanness of an idolater is merely Rabbinical.
(25) In the absence of the distinction it might have been presumed that the uncleanness is Pentateuchal and that, therefore, even terumah and other holy things must be burnt if they came in contact with it.
(26) Sexual excitement.
(27) Raba's.
(28) Mik. VIII, 4.
(29) In agreement with Raba.
(30) Lit., 'you are found saying'.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 34b

even in the bowels of an idolatress,1 while that of an idolater is clean everywhere, even in the bowels of an Israelitish woman, with the exception of any urine of hers that is mixed up with it.2 And should you argue that here also it is only Pentateuchally clean but unclean Rabbinically, [it could be retorted:] Does then her urine convey uncleanness Pentateuchally?3 Consequently it may be inferred that it4 is clean even Rabbinically. This is conclusive.

The Master said, 'The semen of an Israelite is unclean everywhere, even in the bowels of an idolatress'. May you not thereby solve a question of R. Papa; for R. Papa enquired. 'What is the law regarding the semen of an Israelite in the bowels of an idolatress?' [Concerning a discharge] within three days5 R. Papa raised no questions. His enquiry related only to one after three days.6 What, he asked, is the law? Is it only in the case of Israelites, who are anxious to observe the commandments, that their bodies engender heat and the semen decomposes7 but in the case of idolaters, who are not anxious to observe the commandments, their bodies engender no heat and their [semen] therefore does not decompose, or is it possible that on account of their consumption of forbidden animals and reptiles their bodies also engender heat and their semen also decomposes? - This remains undecided.

THE CLEAN BLOOD OF A LEPROUS WOMAN, BETH SHAMMAI etc. What is Beth Hillel's reason? - R. Isaac replied: 'Whether it be a man'8 includes9 a male leper as regards his sources;10 'or a woman'8 includes9 a female leper as regards her sources. Now what could be meant by 'her sources'? If it be suggested: Her other sources11 [the objection could be made that the uncleanness of these] could be inferred from that of the male.12 The reference consequently must be to [the uncleanness of] her blood,13 to declare her 'CLEAN BLOOD' unclean. And Beth Shammai?14 - [The uncleanness of] a female could not be deduced from that of a male, for it can be objected: The position of the male is different15 since he is also required16 to uncover his head and to rend his clothes17 and he is also forbidden cohabitation; [how then could his uncleanness] be compared to that of a female18 who is not [subject to his restrictions]?19 And Beth Hillel?20 - The All Merciful could have written down the restrictions in regard to the female and there would have been no need to repeat them in regard to the male; for it could have been argued: If in the case of a female,18 who is not required to uncover her head or to rend her clothes and who is not forbidden cohabitation either, the All Merciful included her sources21 how much more then should this be the rule18 in the case of the male.22 Now since the text serves no purpose in regard to the male,23 apply it to the female; and since it can serve no purpose as far as her other sources24 are concerned,25 apply it to her blood, to declare her 'CLEAN BLOOD' unclean. And Beth Shammai?26 - The uncleanness of a male cannot be deduced from that of a female, for it can be objected: The position of a female is different,27 since she becomes unclean28 even as a result of a mishap; [how then could her uncleanness] be compared to that of a male who is not [subject to such a restriction]? And Beth Hillel?26 - The subject dealt with is the position of29 the leper, how can they raise an objection against it from that of the zab?30 And Beth Shammai?26 - They raise objections from any form of uncleanness. And if you prefer I might reply that Beth Shammai can answer you: The expression30 'whether it be a man'31 is required for the following exposition: 'Whether it be a man' whosoever is a man irrespective of whether he is of age or only a minor.32 And Beth Hillel?33 - They derive this ruling from 'This is the law of him that hath an issue'34 which implies, whether he be of age or a minor.

R. Joseph stated: When R. Simeon b. Lakish discoursed on the zab he raised the following question.35 Does the first observation36 of a zab who was a minor convey uncleanness by contact? The All Merciful having said, This is the law of him that hath an issue and of him from whom the flow of seed goeth out,37 therefore only if his 'flow of seed' causes uncleanness does his first observation also cause uncleanness, but the minor,38 since his 'flow of seed' conveys no uncleanness, his first observation also conveys no uncleanness; or is it possible that it is unclean, since if he observed two discharges the two are combined?39 - Raba replied. Come and hear: This is the law of him that have an issue,37 implies, whether he is of age or a minor; as in the case of an adult a first observation conveys uncleanness so also in that of a minor a first observation conveys uncleanness.

R. Joseph enquired: Does the blood of a first observation of a leper convey uncleanness by contact? Is the place of the zibah a source and, therefore, conveys uncleanness,40 or is it possible that it is no source and, therefore, conveys no uncleanness?41 - Raba replied, Come and hear: His issue is unclean,42 this teaches concerning an issue of a zab that it is unclean.43 Now of what kind of person has this been said? If it be suggested: Of one who is only a zab44

____________________
(1) If she discharged it on a garment.
(2) As the idolater's semen is here ruled to be clean everywhere, support is adduced for Raba's ruling.
(3) Of course not. Its uncleanness is only Rabbinical.
(4) An idolater's semen.
(5) After intercourse.
(6) Which in the case of an Israelitish woman is clean.
(7) After three days, and in consequence of this it is regarded as clean.
(8) Lev. XV, 33.
(9) Since the expression is not required for its context that previously in the same verse dealt in general terms 'of him that have an issue'.
(10) His mouth, for instance. Sc. not only is his body a primary uncleanness but, as the zab of which the text explicitly speaks, his spittle also is a primary uncleanness and may, therefore, impart uncleanness of the first degree to man and articles.
(11) Those that do not discharge blood but spittle or urine.
(12) As these sources of the male are unclean, so are the similar sources of the female.
(13) Which does not apply to the male.
(14) How can they maintain their ruling in view of this argument?
(15) From that of a female.
(16) When leprous.
(17) Cf. Lev. XIII, 45.
(18) When leprous.
(19) Cf. Ker. 8b.
(20) V. p. 237. n. 10.
(21) As regards uncleanness,
(22) Who is subject to these restrictions.
(23) Whose case, as has just been shown, could well have been deduced from that of the female.
(24) Those that do not discharge blood but spittle or urine.
(25) These having been deduced supra from 'or a woman',
(26) How can they maintain their ruling in view of this argument?
(27) From that of a male.
(28) In the case of zibah.
(29) Lit., 'stand at',
(30) Lit., 'that'.
(31) Lev. XV, 33.
(32) In either case is he subject to the uncleanness of zibah. Now since the text is required for this exposition it cannot also serve the purpose for which Beth Hillel seek to employ it.
(33) Having used the text for their ruling in our Mishnah whence do they derive this ruling?
(34) Lev. XV, 32.
(35) Lit., 'enquired thus'.
(36) Of a discharge.
(37) Lev. XV, 32.
(38) Lit., that'.
(39) Constituting him a confirmed zab in respect of the uncleanness of seven days, as an adult zab.
(40) As the other sources of a leper.
(41) Except by contact.
(42) Lev. XV, 2, referring (since the root meaning 'issue' is repeated) to a second discharge.
(43) And conveys it not only by contact but also by carriage (cf. infra 55a).
(44) But no leper.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 35a

[the difficulty would arise:] If it1 causes the uncleanness of others,2 is it not obvious that it causes that of the man himself?3 It is consequently obvious that this has been said of a zab who is a leper.4 And since a Scriptural text was required to include him in the category of uncleanness after a second observation,5 it may be inferred that the place of the zibah is no source.6 Said Rab Judah of Diskarta7 to Raba: What is the proof?8 Is it not still possible to maintain that the text deals with one who is only a zab;9 and as to your objection 'If it causes the uncleanness of others, is it not obvious that it causes that of the man himself?' [It can be retorted:] The case of the scapegoat10 proves [the invalidity of your argument], for it causes uncleanness to others11 while it is itself clean.12 Abaye observed: Why did he13 at all raise such a question, seeing that he himself stated, 'This is the law of him that hath an issue,14 implies, whether he is of age or a minor', and since this law15 has been deduced by him from that text,14 the expression of 'whether it be a man'16 remains free for the purpose of including a leper in regard to his source and 'or a woman' serves to include a female leper in regard to her sources; and the All Merciful has compared17 the leper to the confirmed zab:18 As the confirmed zab conveys uncleanness through carriage so does the first discharge of a leper convey uncleanness by carriage.

R. Huna ruled: The first observed discharge of a zab conveys uncleanness19 even in the case of a mishap; for it is said, This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him from whom the flow of seed goeth out;14 as 'the flow of seed' conveys uncleanness even in the case of a mishap so does the first observed discharge of a zab convey uncleanness even in the case of a mishap. Come and hear: If he observed a first discharge, he must be examined.20 Is not this done to determine his21 uncleanness?22 - No; in regard to a sacrifice.23 Come and hear: At the second observation of a discharge he must be examined.20 Now for what purpose? If it be suggested: For that of a sacrifice but not for that of uncleanness24 [it could be retorted:] Apply here the Scriptural text 'out of his flesh'.25 which implies, but not as a result of a mishap.26 Consequently it must be for the purpose of uncleanness. And since the final clause refers to an examination in regard to uncleanness must not the first clause also refer to one for uncleanness?27 - What an argument! Each might refer to an examination for different purposes.28 Come and hear: R. Eliezer ruled: Even at the third observation he must be examined on account of the sacrifice.' From which it follows, does it not, that the first Tanna requires it29 on account of the uncleanness?22 - No; all may require it29 on account of the sacrifice, but here they30 differ on the exposition of the eth31 particles. The Rabbis base no exposition on the eth particles and R. Eliezer does. 'The Rabbis base no exposition on the eth particles': 'He that hath an issue'32 represents one discharge, 'his issue'33 represents a second one; so far 'for the man';34 while at the third discharge the All Merciful compared him to the woman.35 'And R. Eliezer does': 'He that hath an issue'36 represents one discharge, 'eth'37 represents a second one, 'his issue'38 represents a third one, while at the fourth discharge the All Merciful compared him to the woman.39

Come and hear: R. Isaac said, A zab, surely, was included in the same law of uncleanness as one who emitted semen,40 why then was he excluded?41 In order to relax the law for him in one respect and to restrict it for him in another respect. 'To relax the law for him' in that he does not become unclean in case of a mishap; and to restrict it for him'

____________________
(1) The issue of a zab.
(2) Anything that the zab carries is unclean.
(3) What need then is there to mention the obvious?
(4) To whom, being unclean on account of his leprosy, the inference a minori ad majus cannot be applied.
(5) Thus implying that a first issue is clean.
(6) And, therefore, causes no uncleanness by carriage. Had it been a source the first discharge would have been unclean and there would have been no need to include in the uncleanness a second one.
(7) [Deskarah, sixteen parasangs N.E. of Bagdad. v. Obermeyer. p. 146].
(8) Lit., 'from what'.
(9) While the discharge of a leper requires no Scriptural text to tell of its uncleanness since even a first one is unclean by reason of its issue from a leper's source.
(10) Cf. Lev, XVI, 5ff.
(11) The man who carries it to Azazel (cf. Lev. XVI, 8, 26).
(12) As any other live beast.
(13) R. Joseph.
(14) Lev. XV, 32.
(15) The uncleanness of a minor.
(16) Lev. XV, 33, from which it was deduced supra that the first discharge of a minor is unclean.
(17) By including the expression of 'whether it be a man' (applied to the leper) in the text dealing with the zab.
(18) One who observed two discharges (for the proof cf. Rashi).
(19) Of a light nature: Only by contact and for the duration of one day; and only when it was followed by a second discharge does the person become a confirmed zab in respect of the counting of the seven days of uncleanness.
(20) Zabim II, 2.
(21) Lit., 'what, not to'.
(22) By ascertaining whether the discharge was or was not due to a mishap. In the former case it would be deemed clean. An objection against R. Huna.
(23) Which must be brought after three observed discharges. In case of a mishap the discharge is not reckoned as one of the three.
(24) Sc. the major uncleanness.
(25) Lev. XV, 2, dealing with one who observed two discharges.
(26) How then could it be held that no examination is required for this purpose?
(27) Cf. supra n. 3,
(28) Lit., 'that as it is and that as it is'. sc. while the latter examination serves the purposes of ascertaining the person's subjection to uncleanness, the former (as stated supra) may serve that of ascertaining whether he is liable to a sacrifice.
(29) The examination.
(30) R. Eliezer and the first Tanna.
(31) Grammatically the sign of the defined accusative.
(32) Lev. XV. 33. V. following n.
(33) Ibid. E.V.. Of them that have an issue,
(34) Ibid. (E.V.. whether it be a man). Sc. in the case of a mishap it is not subject to uncleanness.
(35) Ibid. (E.V. or a woman). Sc. even in the case of a mishap it is subject to uncleanness (cf. infra 36b) and also the obligation of a sacrifice.
(36) Lev. XV, 33. V. infra n. 3.
(37) Grammatically the sign of the defined accusative.
(38) Ibid. E.V., Of them that have an issue.
(39) Cf. prev. nn. In this case, however, the comparison is restricted to the case of a mishap. viz., if such a discharge occurred after some of the seven days have been counted all the counting is void. Uncleanness sets in after two discharges while a sacrifice is incurred after the third discharge.
(40) As will he shown infra.
(41) In being given a special section to himself.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 35b

in that he causes a couch and a seat to be unclean.1 Now when [does this ruling apply]? If it be suggested: When a second discharge was observed [the objection would arise]: How could he then be included in 'the same law of uncleanness as one who emitted semen'? It is consequently obvious [that is was meant to apply] when a first discharge was observed;2 and yet it was stated, was it not, 'To relax the law for him in that he does not become unclean in case of a mishap'?3 - But how do you understand this: 'To restrict it for him in that he causes a couch and a seat to be unclean'; is he capable4 after a first observation to cause a couch and a seat to be unclean? But the fact is that it is this that was meant: 'R. Isaac said, A zab after his first observation was surely included in the same law of uncleanness as one who emitted semen, why then was he in the case of a second observation excluded? In order to relax the law for him in one respect and to restrict it for him in another respect. "To relax the law for him" in that he does not become unclean in case of a mishap; "and to restrict it for him" in that he causes a couch and a bed to be unclean'.5

R. Huna stated: The discharge of a zab resembles the dough water of barley. The discharge of the zab issues from dead flesh while semen issues from live flesh. The former is watery and resembles the white of a crushed egg while the latter is viscous and resembles the white of a sound egg.

THE BLOOD OF A WOMAN AFTER CHILDBIRTH WHO DID NOT UNDERGO RITUAL IMMERSION etc. It was taught: Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai, Do you not agree that if a menstruant who did not undergo ritual Immersion observed some blood she is unclean?6 Said Beth Shammai to them: [This is] no [comparison]. If you apply this law7 to a menstruant who, even after she had undergone immersion, is unclean if she observed a discharge, would you also apply it to a woman after childbirth who, if she had undergone immersion and then observed a discharge, is clean? The former retorted: The case of one who gave birth during zibah proves our case; for if such a woman had undergone ritual immersion8 and observed a discharge after the counted days she is clean9 while if she did not undergo immersion and observed a discharge she is unclean. The latter replied: The same law10 applies,11 and this is our reply. This then implies that they12 are in disagreement.13 But have we not learnt: THEY12 AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT IF SHE GAVE BIRTH WHILE IN ZIBAH, IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY? - This is no difficulty, since the latter14 refers to one who already counted the prescribed days while the former15 refers to one who did not count them.16 And so it was also taught: If a woman who gave birth during zibah had counted the prescribed number of clean days but did not undergo ritual immersion and then observed a discharge. Beth Shammai gave their ruling17 in accordance with their own view18 and Beth Hillel ruled in accordance with their own view.19

It was stated: Rab said, [the blood discharge20 emanates21 from] one and the same source; but it is the Torah that declared it unclean during one period22 and clean during another.23 Levi, however, said, It emanates from two different sources. When the unclean one is closed24 the clean one opens, and when the clean one closes,25 the unclean one opens. What is the practical difference between them?26 - The practical difference between them is the case of a continuous discharge from within the seven days into the period following these seven days, or from within the fourteen days into the period after the fourteenth, or from within the forty days to the period after the forty days or from within the eighty days into the period following eighty days. According to Rab the law is to be relaxed in the first case27 and restricted in the latter;28 but according to Levi the law is to be restricted in the first case29 and relaxed in the latter.30

An objection was raised: THE BLOOD OF A WOMAN AFTER CHILDBIRTH WHO DID NOT UNDERGO RITUAL IMMERSION, BETH SHAMMAI RULED, IS LIKE HER SPITTLE AND HER URINE, BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY, It was now presumed that this is a case where31 there was a break.32 This then is satisfactory according to Rab who said that the discharge emanates from one and the same source,33 for this reason it conveys uncleanness both when wet and dry.34 But according to Levi who said that it emanated from two different sources why35 should it convey uncleanness both when wet and when dry? - Levi can answer you: We are here dealing with the case of a woman whose discharge was continuous.36 But if the discharge was continuous, what is Beth Shammai's reason? - Beth Shammai are of the opinion that there exists only once source. According to Levi37 one can quite well see the point that divides Beth Shammai from Beth Hillel;38 but, according to Rab,39 what40 is the point that divides them?41 - The point that divides them in the question whether42 both the termination of the prescribed number of days and also ritual immersion are required; Beth Shammai holding that the All Merciful made the cleanness dependent on the days alone while Beth Hillel hold that43 it is dependent on both the days and immersion.44

Come and hear: THEY AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT IF SHE GAVE BIRTH WHILE IN ZIBAH, IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY. It was now assumed that here also45 it is a case where there was a break.46 Now, according to Rab who stated that there exists only one source one can quite well see the reason why the discharge conveys UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY;47 but according to Levi who stated that the sources are two why does the discharge48 CONVEY UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY?49 - He can answer you: Here also it is a case of a continuous discharge. But if the discharge was continuous, what was the need of stating the law?50 - It was necessary to state it for the sake of Beth Shammai: Although Beth Shammai maintain that there is only one source and that the All Merciful had ordained the uncleanness to be dependent entirely on the lapse of the prescribed number of days,51 this applies only to a woman in normal52 childbirth, the prescribed number of whose unclean days had passed,53 but not to a woman who gave birth in zibah who is required also to count seven clean days.54

Come and hear: Her sickness shall be unclean55 includes56 the man who had intercourse with her;57 'her sickness shall be unclean'55 includes58 the nights;59 'her sickness shall she be unclean'60 includes58 a woman who gave birth while in zibah who remains in her uncleanness61 until seven clean days have passed.62 This63 is quite intelligible according to Rab who said that there exists only one source, since it is for this reason that she64 requires seven clean days,65

____________________
(1) As a 'father of uncleanness'.
(2) When (cf. supra 34b ad fin.) he may well be compared to one who emitted semen.
(3) An objection against R. Huna.
(4) Lit., 'a son of'.
(5) As a 'father of uncleanness'.
(6) If they do in this case, why do they differ in that of a WOMAN AFTER CHILDBIRTH?
(7) Of uncleanness.
(8) After counting the seven clean days in addition to the unclean days of childbirth.
(9) Because it is clean blood.
(10) That is applicable to a woman after childbirth in the absence of zibah.
(11) To a childbirth in zibah: sc. the latter also is clean, if the discharge occurred after the unclean days of childbirth and the seven clean days after zibah had been counted, though she had undergone no immersion.
(12) Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.
(13) On the uncleanness of one who was in childbirth during zibah.
(14) The Baraitha.
(15) Our Mishnah.
(16) Sc. the discharge occurred before the lapse of seven clean days after the zibah. As she is then still a zibah her discharge (unlike that of a woman in childbirth in the absence of zibah that is unclean only when wet) is unclean whether wet or dry.
(17) Lit., 'went',
(18) Expressed in the case of a childbirth that was free from zibah, viz., that even prior to immersion the discharge is clean if the prescribed number of clean days had been duly counted.
(19) That cleanness cannot be attained unless there was immersion as well as the due counting of the clean days.
(20) After childbirth.
(21) During the prescribed unclean and clean days.
(22) For seven days after the birth of a male child and for fourteen days after the birth of a female child.
(23) For thirty-three days after the seven in the case of the birth of a male and for sixty-six days after the fourteen in the case of the birth of a female.
(24) At the end of seven and the fourteen days respectively (cf. prev. n. but one).
(25) At the termination (cf. prev. n. but one) of the forty and the eighty days respectively.
(26) Rab and Levi.
(27) From within the seven and the fourteen days to the respective periods following them. Though the discharge was continuous it becomes clean, in accordance with the ordinance of the Torah, after the seventh and the fourteenth day respectively.
(28) From within the forty and the eighty days to the respective periods following them. Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
(29) Cf. prev. n. but one. Since the discharge was continuous it must be assumed that the unclean source had not yet closed.
(30) Cf. prev. n. mut. mut.
(31) At the termination of the unclean days.
(32) In the continuity of the discharge.
(33) And that it is only an ordinance of the Torah that brings about the distinction.
(34) As the woman had not yet undergone ritual immersion the source must remain unclean and the discharge continues to convey uncleanness whether it is wet or dry.
(35) Since at the termination of the unclean days the clean source opens.
(36) Sc. there was no break in it when the unclean period had ended, which is an indication that the unclean source had not yet been closed.
(37) Who stated that according to Beth Hillel there are two different sources.
(38) According to the latter, since the sources are two, and since the unclean one had not yet closed, the discharge must be unclean; while according to the former, since there is only one source and the Torah ordained that after the unclean days prescribed it becomes clean, the discharge must be clean.
(39) Who stated that there is only one source.
(40) If Beth Hillel uphold this view.
(41) Beth Shammai from Beth Hillel, seeing that both agree that there is only one source for the clean and the unclean blood.
(42) To enable the woman to attain cleanness.
(43) Irrespective of whether the discharge was continuous or ceased for a time at the termination of the unclean days.
(44) One without the other does not suffice for the attainment of cleanness.
(45) Where, as was explained supra, the days prescribed for a childbirth had passed but the seven clean days that are to follow zibah had not yet been counted.
(46) In the continuity of the discharge, at the conclusion of the unclean period.
(47) The reason being that the Torah ordained the blood to be regarded as unclean until the seven clean days that must follow zibah had passed.
(48) Which after the unclean period emanates from the clean source.
(49) Sc. while, by reason of its emanating from the source of a zab, it is rightly unclean when wet, why should it also be unclean when dry?
(50) That it CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH etc.
(51) Sc. that the discharge after these unclean days have passed becomes naturally clean.
(52) Lit., 'alone'.
(53) Lit., 'completed'.
(54) After the zibah. So long as she had not counted these days she remains subject to the uncleanness of zibah.
(55) Lev. XII, 2.
(56) Since otherwise the text is superfluous after the previous statement 'then she shall be unclean seven days as in the days of impurity' (ibid.).
(57) Sc. that he becomes as unclean as she.
(58) V. p. 246. n. 12.
(59) I.e., that the uncleanness is not restricted to the days, though 'days' only were spoken of in the context.
(60) Lev. XII, 2.
(61) After all discharge had ceased.
(62) Infra 37b.
(63) The last mentioned ruling.
(64) To attain cleanness.
(65) The discharge emanating from the same source as the unclean blood, the Torah (by its insertion of the superfluous text mentioned) ordained that cleanness cannot be attained before the woman had counted seven clean days.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 36a

but according to Levi, who said that the sources were two, why should it be necessary to count seven days, seeing that the slightest [break]1 should suffice?2 - It is this that was meant: It is necessary for her that3 there shall be a slight [break]4 in order that [the following days] shall be counted as her seven clean ones.

Come and hear: The days of her pregnancy supplement those of her nursing,5 and the days of her nursing supplement those of her pregnancy. In what manner? If there was a break of two 'onahs during her pregnancy and of one during her nursing, or of two during her nursing and of one during her pregnancy, or of one and a half during her pregnancy and of one and a half during her nursing, they are all combined into a series of three 'onahs.6 Now according to Rab who said that there was only one source this ruling is quite justified, for it is for this reason7 that there must be a break of three 'onahs,8 but according to Levi who said that there were two sources why9 should a break of three 'onahs be required, seeing that the slightest [break] should suffice?10 - It is this that was meant: It is necessary for her that there shall be a slight [break] in order that [the following days] shall be counted for her11 as three 'onahs.

Come and hear: Both,12 however, are of the same opinion that where a woman observed a discharge after her clean blood period13 it suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time of her observation. Now according to Levi who said that there exist two sources one may well concede this ruling since it is for this reason14 that15 it suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time of her observation,16 but according to Rab who said that there existed only one source, why should it suffice for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time of her observation seeing that17 she should have become unclean for twenty-four hours retrospectively? - This is a case where there was not time enough.18 But why should she not be unclean from her previous examination to her last examination?19 - As there was no interval of twenty-four hours20 the Rabbis enacted no preventive measure even in regard to uncleanness from the previous examination to the last examination.

Come and hear: If a woman who was in childbirth during zibah had counted the prescribed number of clean days but did not undergo ritual immersion, and then observed a discharge, Beth Shammai gave their ruling in accordance with their own view and Beth Hillel ruled in accordance with their own view.21 Now according to Rab who said that there was only one source this ruling is quite justified, since it is for this reason22 that23 the discharge causes uncleanness both when wet and when dry; but according to Levi who said that there were two sources, why24 does the discharge cause uncleanness both when wet and when dry? - Levi can answer you: I maintain the same view as the Tanna who stated that 'both, however, are of the same opinion'.25 And if you prefer I might reply that here we are dealing with one whose discharge is continuous. But was it not stated that she had counted?26 - Here we are dealing with one who gave birth to a female child while in zibah and whose discharge ceased during the first week27 but continued again28 in the second week,27 he being of the opinion that the unclean days of childbirth in which no discharge is observed are counted among the clean days of one's zibah.29 Rabina said to R. Ashi: R. Shamen of Sikara30 told us, 'Mar Zutra once visited our place when he delivered a discourse In which he laid down: The law is to be restricted in agreement with Rab31 and it is also to be restricted in agreement with Levi'.32 R. Ashi stated: The law is in agreement with Rab both in his relaxations33 and his restrictions.34 Meremar in his discourse laid down: The law is in agreement with Rab both in his relaxations33 and restrictions.31 And the law is in agreement with Rab both in his relaxations33 and restrictions.31

____________________
(1) At the termination of the unclean period.
(2) For the closing up of the unclean source. As all the blood that is discharged subsequently emanates from the clean source it should suffice for the woman to wait after the unclean period no more than seven days and attain cleanness at their termination, irrespective of whether she observed any discharge during these days or not.
(3) At the termination of the unclean period.
(4) An indication that the unclean source had been closed.
(5) As regards the establishment of a regular period.
(6) Supra 10b q.v. notes.
(7) That there is only one source.
(8) In the absence of such a break the discharge cannot be regarded as having ceased.
(9) Since the blood after the unclean period emanates from the clean source, while the unclean one is closed.
(10) Cf. supra p. 247. n. 11 mut. mut.
(11) Even if she observed a discharge.
(12) Shammai and Hillel who differ on the question of twenty-four hours retrospective uncleanness.
(13) This is now presumed to mean even if a considerable time after, on the eighty-third or ninetieth day after child-birth, for instance.
(14) That there exist two sources.
(15) The blood from the unclean source having ceased for many days.
(16) Which (cf. prev. n.) is rightly regarded as a first discharge after many days from the unclean source. A first discharge in the case of a nursing-woman, as in that of another three categories of woman, does not cause any retrospective uncleanness.
(17) Since that source has also been discharging during the clean period and the present discharge cannot be regarded as a first one.
(18) Sc. less than a twenty-four hours interval has elapsed between the end of the clean period and the observation of the discharge. Hence even if the blood discharged had been in the outer chamber twenty-four hours previously the woman
(since her blood at that time was still clean) could not be deemed unclean.
(19) If, for instance, on examining herself in the morning she observed a discharge, her uncleanness should be retrospective and all objects she handled during the night should be regarded as unclean. The previous answer that 'there was not time enough' cannot be given here, since in such a case there would have been no necessity whatsoever to state, what is so obvious, that in such a case it suffices to reckon the uncleanness from the time of observation.
(20) Cf. prev. n. but one.
(21) That before ritual immersion the discharge is unclean both when wet and when dry.
(22) That there existed only one source.
(23) In the absence of ritual immersion.
(24) Seeing that the required number of days had been counted and the unclean source must have been stopped.
(25) That if there was a discharge after the termination of the clean blood period, even though (as explained supra) more than twenty-four hours intervened, it suffices for the woman to be unclean from the time she observed a discharge; which shows that he also holds that there exist two sources.
(26) It does. Now, if the flow of blood had not ceased, how could she even begin to count?
(27) Of the two unclean weeks prescribed for a woman after the birth of a female.
(28) Lit., 'did not cease', 'break off'.
(29) Hence the statement that 'she had counted'. As in the second week, however, the discharge began again and continued into the third week, it conveys uncleanness, according to Beth Hillel, both when wet and when dry, since it emanates from an unclean source which the Torah did not regard as clean before the prescribed number of days had been counted and immersion had been performed.
(30) On the Tigris near Mahoza.
(31) That if the discharge was continuous from within the clean period into the unclean one following, it conveys uncleanness as if it had emanated from an unclean source.
(32) That where a discharge continued from within the clean days period into the clean one that follows, it is not regarded as clean blood since the continuous discharge is an indication that the unclean source had not yet closed up.
(33) That where the discharge continued from within the unclean period into the clean one following, it is regarded as clean after the last unclean day, despite its continuity.
(34) This is explained in the Gemara infra.

Talmud - Mas. Nidah 36b

MISHNAH. A WOMAN IN PROTRACTED LABOUR IS REGARDED AS A MENSTRUANT. IF HAVING BEEN IN LABOUR1 FOR THREE DAYS OF THE ELEVEN DAYS,2 SHE WAS RELIEVED FROM HER PAINS FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS AND THEN GAVE BIRTH, SHE IS REGARDED AS HAVING GIVEN BIRTH IN A ZIBAH;3 SO R. ELIEZER. R. JOSHUA RULED: THE RELIEF FROM PAIN4 MUST HAVE CONTINUED FOR A NIGHT AND A DAY,5 AS THE NIGHT AND THE DAY OF THE SABBATH.6 THE RELIEF [SPOKEN OF IS ONE] FROM PAIN, NOT FROM BLEEDING.7 HOW LONG MAY PROTRACTED LABOUR CONTINUE?8 R. MEIR RULED: 'EVEN FORTY OR FIFTY DAYS.9 R. JUDAH RULED: HER [NINTH] MONTH SUFFICES FOR HER.10 R. JOSE AND R. SIMEON RULED: PROTRACTED LABOUR CANNOT CONTINUE8 FOR MORE THAN TWO WEEKS.

GEMARA. Is then11 every woman IN PROTRACTED LABOUR REGARDED AS A MENSTRUANT?12 - Rab replied : She13 is deemed to be a menstruant for one day.14 Samuel, however, ruled: The possibility must be taken into consideration15 that she might be relieved from her pain,16 while R. Isaac ruled: A discharge on the part of a woman in labour17 is of no consequence.18 But was it not stated, A WOMAN IN PROTRACTED LABOUR IS REGARDED AS A MENSTRUANT? - Raba replied: During the days of her menstruation19 SHE20 IS DEEMED TO BE A MENSTRUANT,21 but during the days of zibah22 she is clean. And so it was also taught: If a woman is in protracted labour during the days of her menstruation19 she is deemed to be a menstruant,20 but if this occurred during the days of her zibah22 she is clean. In what circumstances? If she was in labour for one day and had relief from pains for two days, or if she was in labour for two days and had relief from pain for one day,23 or if she was relieved from pains and then was again in labour and then was again relieved from pain,23 such a woman is regarded as having given birth in zibah; but if she was relieved from pain for one day and then was in labour for two days, or if she was relieved for two days and then was in labour for one day, or if she was in labour and then was relieved and then was again in labour, such a woman is not regarded as having given birth in zibah; the general rule being that where the pains of labour immediately precede24 birth the woman is not regarded as having given birth in zibah, but if release from pain immediately precedes24 birth the woman25 must be regarded as having given birth in zibah.26 Hananiah the son of R. Joshua's brother ruled: Provided her pains of labour were experienced27 on her third day.28 even though she had relief during the rest of that day, she29 is not regarded as having given birth in zibah. What does the expression 'The general rule' include? - It includes the ruling of Hananiah.

Whence is this30 deduced? - Our31 Rabbis taught: Her blood32 refers to blood that is normally discharged,33 but not to such as is due to childbirth.34 You say. '[Not to such as is] due to childbirth'; is it not possible that only that blood is excluded35 which is due to an accident?34 As it was said, And if a woman have an issue of her blood,36 a discharge that is due to an accident is included;37 to what then could one apply the limitation of 'her blood'?36 Obviously to this: "Her blood" refers to blood that is normally discharged but not to such as is due to childbirth'. But38 what reason do you see for holding the blood of childbirth clean and that which is due to an accident unclean? I hold that which is due to childbirth clean since it is followed by cleanness,39 but hold that which is due to an accident unclean since it is not followed by cleanness. On the contrary! That which is due to an accident should be held clean since a discharge from a zab that is due to an accident is clean? - Now at all events we are dealing with the case of a woman, and we do not find that in the case of a woman blood due to an accident is ever clean. And if you prefer I might reply: What opinion do you hold? Is it to regard a discharge that is due to an accident clean and one that is due to childbirth unclean? Surely you cannot point to any occurrence that is more in the nature of an accident40 than this.41 If so,42 why should it not be said in the case of a menstruant also: Her issue43 refers to an issue that is normally discharged but not to such as is due to childbirth?44 You say, '[not to such as is due to] childbirth'; is it not possible that only that blood is excluded34 which is due to an accident?34 As it was said, And if a woman have an issue,43 a discharge that is due to an accident is included;45 to what then could one apply the limitation of 'her issue'?46 Obviously to this: 'Her issue' refers to an issue that is normally discharged but not to such as is due to childbirth!47 - Resh Lakish answered: Scripture said, She shall continue48 which implies:49 You have another continuation which is of the same nature as this one;50 and which is it?51 It is that of protracted labour during the days of her zibah. Might it not be suggested that this refers to protracted labour during the days of her menstruation? - Rather, said Samuel's father, Scripture said, Then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation,49 [implying] but not 'as in her zibah', from which it may be inferred that her zibah is clean; and which is it?51 It is that of protracted labour during the days of her zibah. Now, however, that it is written, Then she shall be unclean two weeks as in her menstruation,52 what need was there for the expression of 'her blood'?53 - If not for the expression 'her blood' it might have been presumed that the deduction 'as in her menstration'52 and not 'as in her zibah' implies that the discharge is clean even where the woman was relieved from pain,54 hence we were informed55 [that the discharge is clean only where it is due to childbirth].56

Shila b. Abina gave a practical decision in agreement with the view of Rab.57 When Rab's soul was about to depart to its eternal rest he58 said to R. Assi, 'Go and restrain him,59 and if he does not listen to you try to convince him'.60 The other thought that he was told, 'put him under the ban'.61 After Rab's soul came to its eternal rest he62 said to him,63 'Retract, for Rab has retracted'. 'If', the other retorted, 'he had retracted he would have told me so'.64 As he63 did not listen to him' the latter put him under the ban. 'Is not the Master', the other63 asked him, 'afraid of the fire?'65 'I', the former replied, 'am Issi b. Judah66 who is Issi b. Gur-aryeh67 who is Issi b. Gamaliel who is Issi b. Mahalalel, a brazen mortar68 over which rust has no power'. 'And I', the other retorted, 'am Shila b. Abina, an iron pestle that breaks the brazen mortar Thereupon R. Assi fell ill and they had to put him in hot [blankets] to relieve him from chills and in cold [compresses] to relieve him from heat,69 and his soul departed to its eternal rest.

____________________
(1) And bleeding.
(2) That intervene between the menstrual periods and during which a discharge of blood is ordinarily attributed to zibah.
(3) As the pains ceased before birth it is evident that the previous discharge (cf. prev. n. but one) was not due to the labour but to zibah. Had the pains continued until birth all the previous bleeding would have been attributed to that of the labour which is Pentateuchally clean.
(4) As result of which the bleeding must be regarded as zibah and is not to be attributed to the labour.
(5) Not merely for twenty-four hours that began and ended at any time of the day or the night.
(6) Which begins at sunset of Friday and terminates at that of Saturday.
(7) I.e., even if she was bleeding, the relief from pain alone suffices to subject her to the uncleanness of zibah.
(8) In respect of exempting the woman from zibah (cf. supra p. 250. n. 8) even if she bled.
(9) Prior to childbirth; provided only that there was no period of relief from pain (as defined supra) before birth.
(10) Sc. only blood discharged during that month may be attributed to labour. Should the discharge begin during the 'eleven days' of the previous month and continue for three days she is deemed a zabah (on account of the discharge on these three days) even though the bleeding continued throughout the ninth month also.
(11) Since our Mishnah seems to lay down a general rule.
(12) But this, surely, is absurd. During the eleven days of zibah the woman could not be regarded as a MENSTRUANT but as a zabah.
(13) Even if the discharge in the course of her labour occurred during the eleven days of zibah.
(14) And on undergoing immersion in the evening she attains to cleanness. A woman who was not in labour, if she had such a discharge, must allow another day (free from any discharge) to pass before she can attain to cleanness.
(15) In accordance with Rabbinic law, though Pentateuchally this is not necessary.
(16) Before childbirth. As a result it would be evident that the discharge was one of zibah and the man cohabiting with the woman would be subject to kareth in Pentateuchal law. The woman, like any other who observed a discharge during the eleven days of zibah, must consequently remain unclean until another day, that was free from any further discharge, had passed.
(17) Even during the 'eleven days' of zibah.
(18) Sc. it is regarded as the blood of labour and the woman is deemed to be clean even on the same day.
(19) Sc. the period during which a discharge is deemed to be menstrual.
(20) Though in labour.
(21) The reason is given infra.
(22) Cf. prev. n. but one mut. mut.
(23) While still bleeding.
(24) Lit., 'near'.
(25) Where her discharge continued for three days.
(26) The release from pain serving as proof that the previous discharge was not due to childbirth but to zibah.
(27) Even if only for a short while.
(28) Ordinarily it is the discharge on the third day that causes a woman to be a confirmed or major zabah. A discharge on not more than one or two days only causes her to be a minor zabah.
(29) Since on the third day her relief did not extend over the whole night and the whole day.
(30) That the blood of labour is clean.
(31) Lit., 'for our'.
(32) Lev. XV, 25.
(33) Lit., 'on account of herself'.
(34) The latter being clean.
(35) Lit., 'or it is not but'.
(36) Lev. XV, 25.
(37) Since the text draws no distinctions.
(38) Seeing that the text does not specifically mention either the blood of childbirth or that which is due to an accident.
(39) The period of unclean blood after a childbirth (seven days for a male and fourteen days for a female) is followed by one of clean blood (thirty-three days for a male and sixty-six days for a female).
(40) Sc. that is not dependent on the woman's will.
(41) If then blood that is due to an accident (cf. prev. n.) is clean that which is due to childbirth must equally be clean.
(42) If the deduction just discussed is tenable.
(43) Lev. XV, 19. in the section dealing with a menstruant.
(44) But if that exposition is upheld how could it be said supra that blood of labour discharged during the menstrual period is unclean?
(45) Since the text draws no distinctions.
(46) Lev. XV, 19, in the section dealing with a menstruant.
(47) V. p. 253. n. 11.
(48) Lev. XII, 4, referring to clean blood.
(49) Since the expression could well have been omitted without destroying the general meaning of the text.
(50) Sc. in both cases the discharge is clean.
(51) I.e., how could zibah be clean?
(52) Lev. XII, 5. E.V., 'as in her impurity'.
(53) From which the same deductions, that a discharge of blood that was due to childbirth is clean, was made supra.
(54) Before the birth of the child.
(55) By the additional expression of 'her blood'.
(56) Relief from pain is an indication that the previous discharge was not due to childbirth and is therefore, unclean.
(57) That a woman who was in labour during the eleven days of zibah and discharged some blood is unclean for that day (v. supra).
(58) Having changed his former view.
(59) From acting in the same manner.
(60) Garyeh, lit., 'attract him'.
(61) Gadyeh, lit., 'cut him off'.
(62) R. Assi.
(63) Shila.
(64) He was a disciple of Rab.
(65) Sc. that he would suffer for his high handed action.
(66) [He probably meant that his name Assi bore resemblance to that of Assi b. Judah who bore a variety of names, v. Pes., Sonc. ed., p. 585. n. 6.].
(67) Lit., 'lion's whelp' (cf. Gen. XLIX. 9).
(68) Assitha, play upon 'Assi' or 'Issi'.
(69) Aliter: They got him hot to relieve him from chills; they got him cold to relieve him from fever (Jast.).

 

Next

 


2009 JCR