Niddah 47
בין רבי זכאי לרבי ינאי איכא בינייהו טרפה חיה מר סבר
The latter holds that a trefah animal can survive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence his ruling that the birth is valid unless the missing part of the body extended as high as the lower orifices. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
בין ר' ינאי לר' יוחנן איכא בינייהו דר"א דאמר רבי אלעזר
is a ruling of R. Eleazar; for R. Eleazar ruled: If the haunch and its hollow were removed the animal is <i>nebelah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Hul. 21a, 32b. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
המפלת כמין אפקתא דדיקלא אמו טהורה
R. Giddal citing R. Johanan further stated: If a woman aborted a foetus shaped like the ramification of a palmtree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the lower part of his body was shapeless while his limbs branched out from its upper part. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
המפלת יד חתוכה ורגל חתוכה אמו טמאה לידה ואין חוששין שמא מגוף אטום באתה
is subject to the uncleanness of birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. since it is unknown whether the abortion was a male or a female the restrictions of both are imposed upon her. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
בפניו מוסמסין כולי עלמא לא פליגי דטמאה כי פליגי בפניו טוחות ואיפכא איתמר רבי יוחנן אמר
Now if it were so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That, as Resh Lakish maintains, the birth of a foetus with a mashed face causes no uncleanness to its mother. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
אמו טהורה וריש לקיש אמר
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'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both these possibilities would be causes of the woman's cleanness. Why then was only the former possibility mentioned? ');"><sup>22</sup></span>
היינו גוף אטום היינו מי שפניו טוחות
disputes the ruling that the woman is unclean. They only differ where its face was entirely covered over,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. none of the features was distinguishable. ');"><sup>26</sup></span>
כלום בא מעשה לידכם
was made in the reverse order: R. Johanan ruled: His mother is clean; and Resh Lakish ruled: His mother is unclean. Should not then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is now R. Johanan who declared the woman clean. ');"><sup>28</sup></span>
אמרו לו
Resh Lakish raise an objection against R. Johanan from that [Baraitha]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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'? ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
פנים טוחות בא לידינו וטימאנוה
— Because the latter could have answered him: 'A stumped body' and 'a foetus whose face was entirely covered over are identical terms.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');"><sup>30</sup></span>
אמר להם
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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When declaring the woman unclean. ');"><sup>31</sup></span>
צאו וטהרו מה שטמאתם
That you are restricting the law;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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). ');"><sup>32</sup></span>
אמר רב
the days of cleanness'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');"><sup>35</sup></span>
באשה אינו ולד בבהמה אסור באכילה
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 birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And she remains, therefore, clean. ');"><sup>36</sup></span>
באשה ולד בבהמה מותר באכילה
but Samuel ruled: In the case of a woman it is a valid birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the woman is consequently subject to the laws of uncleanness prescribed for one after childbirth. ');"><sup>38</sup></span>
בריה בעלמא ליתא וכי אגמריה רחמנא למשה במעי אמה אגמריה
Rab maintains that such a creature exists nowhere in the world, and that when the All Merciful taught Moses about it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it must not be eaten. ');"><sup>43</sup></span>
ושמואל אמר
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 it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it must not be eaten. ');"><sup>43</sup></span>
רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר כל שיש לו ב' גבין ושני שדראות פסול לעבודה אלמא דחיי
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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bek. 43b; because these are regarded as blemishes. ');"><sup>46</sup></span>
א"ל
it is obvious, is it not, that it is viable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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'. ');"><sup>48</sup></span>
מאי יצא
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 it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The beast with the two backs and the two spinal columns. ');"><sup>55</sup></span>
רב מתרץ לטעמיה ושמואל מתרץ לטעמיה
in that it is forbidden to be eaten even while still in its dam's body?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then could Samuel maintain that even while it is in its dam's body it is permitted? ');"><sup>57</sup></span>
רב מתרץ לטעמיה
— Rab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');"><sup>58</sup></span>
במה דברים אמורים כשיצא לאויר העולם אבל במעי אמו שרי יצא מי שיש לו שני גבין ושני שדראות דאפילו במעי אמו נמי אסור
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 light<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'went out to the air of the world'. ');"><sup>60</sup></span> 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.