Commentary for Bava Kamma 21:19

אי ממתני' הוה אמינא

'Ulla further said on behalf of R. Eleazar: When a placenta comes out [from a woman] partly on one day and partly on the next day, the counting of the days of impurity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are seven for a male child and fourteen for a girl; cf. Lev. XII. 2 and 5. ');">¹⁷</span> commences with the first day [of the emergence]. Raba, however, said to him: What is in your mind? To take the stricter course? Is not this a strictness that will lead to lenience, since you will have to declare her pure<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., after the expiration of the 7 or 14 days for a male or female child respectively, when there commence 33 or 66 days of purity for a boy or girl respectively; cf. Lev. ibid. 4-5. ');">¹⁸</span> by reckoning from the first day? Raba therefore said: 'Out of mere apprehension, notice is taken of the first day [to be considered impure], but actual counting commences only with the second day.' What is the new point made known to us? That even a part of an [emerging] placenta contains a fetus. But have we not learnt this elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 68a. ');">¹⁹</span> 'A placenta coming partly out of an animal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the animal was slaughtered. ');">²⁰</span> renders [the whole of] it unfit for consumption,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is considered to contain a fetus which when born is subject to the law of slaughtering on its own accord. ');">²¹</span> as that, which is a sign of a fetus in humankind is similarly a sign of a fetus in an animal'? — As to this Mishnaic statement I might still have argued

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 21:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.