Niddah 46
המפלת כמין בהמה חיה ועוף (ולד מעליא הוא) דברי ר"מ
An abortion in the shape of a beast, wild animal or bird [is regarded as a valid birth];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
והמפלת סנדל או שליא או שפיר מרוקם והיוצא מחותך הבא אחריו בכור לנחלה ואינו בכור לכהן
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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bek. 46a. Cf. supra n. 2. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ואי ס"ד דחיי הבא אחריו בכור לנחלה מי הוי
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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
השוחט את הבהמה ומצא בה דמות יונה אסורה באכילה
his heart does not ache.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
הכי השתא
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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And was discovered after the beast had been slain. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
התם לא פרסות איכא ולא פרסה איכא הכא נהי דפרסות ליכא פרסה מיהא איכא
— In what respect does this matter? — In that of permitting it to be eaten.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like the beast in which it was found. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
וחכ"א כל שאין בו כו'
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 it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dove-like object. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
שרבי מאיר אומר
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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two cases cannot consequently be compared, and the fanciful question must remain unsolved. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
והא איפכא תניא ר"מ אומר
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 it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be a valid birth. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
אי תניא תניא
said to R. Jeremiah b. Abba, Was not the reverse taught: R. Meir said, 'It must have all the features of a human face'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a justification of the rendering cf. Tosaf. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
מצח והגבינים והעינים והלסתות וגבות הזקן עד שיהו כולם כאחד
— He answered them: If this was taught so you may well rely on it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>
מצח והגבן והעין והלסת וגבת הזקן עד שיהו כולם כאחת
The forehead, the eyebrows, the eyes, the cheeks and the chin must all be present at the same time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the abortion is to be regarded as a valid birth. ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
צורת פנים שאמרו אפילו פרצוף אחד מן הפרצופין חוץ מן האוזן
These, however,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan and Hasa, though with the exception of the forehead, the former speaks in the plural and the latter in the singular. ');"><sup>28</sup></span>
לעולם כמ"ד מצורת ומאי אחד אחד אחד
except the ear.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');"><sup>31</sup></span>
אמר רבא
was taught only to indicate what constitutes a hindrance,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');"><sup>34</sup></span>
רבי זכאי אומר
is one of each.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the double features; as Hasa in fact stated. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> Raba ruled: If a foetus was created with one eye and one thigh, the woman who gives birth to it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'its mother'. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> is unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As one who bore a normal child. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> if these were on the side,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the face and body respectively. sc. in their normal position. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> but if they were in the middle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> she is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since such an abortion is no valid birth. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> Raba further ruled: If a child's gullet is perforated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it is born. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> his mother is unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, the child being viable, the birth is valid. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> but if his gullet is closed up<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the child is not viable. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> she is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a birth being invalid. ');"><sup>48</sup></span> 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: