Niddah 47

Chapter 47

א עד הארכובה רבי ינאי אומר עד לנקביו ר' יוחנן אומר משום רבי יוסי בן יהושע עד מקום טבורו

1 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

ב בין רבי זכאי לרבי ינאי איכא בינייהו טרפה חיה מר סבר טרפה חיה ומר סבר טרפה אינה חיה

2 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

ג בין ר' ינאי לר' יוחנן איכא בינייהו דר"א דאמר רבי אלעזר ניטל ירך וחלל שלה נבלה

3 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

ד אמר רב פפא מחלוקת מלמטה למעלה אבל מלמעלה למטה אפי' כל דהו טהורה וכן אמר רב גידל אמר רבי יוחנן המפלת את שגולגלתו אטומה אמו טהורה

4 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

ה ואמר רב גידל אמר רבי יוחנן המפלת כמין אפקתא דדיקלא אמו טהורה

5 is clean.13 R. Giddal citing R. Johanan further stated: If a woman aborted a foetus shaped like the ramification of a palmtree15

ו איתמר המפלת מי שפניו מוסמסים רבי יוחנן אמר אמו טמאה ר"ל אמר אמו טהורה

6 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

ז איתיביה ר' יוחנן לריש לקיש המפלת יד חתוכה ורגל חתוכה אמו טמאה לידה ואין חוששין שמא מגוף אטום באתה ואם איתא ליתני שמא מגוף אטום או ממי שפניו מוסמסין

7 hand or a shaped foot she14 is subject to the uncleanness of birth18 and there is no need to consider the possibility19

ח אמר רב פפי בפניו מוסמסין כולי עלמא לא פליגי דטמאה כי פליגי בפניו טוחות ואיפכא איתמר רבי יוחנן אמר אמו טהורה וריש לקיש אמר אמו טמאה

8 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

ט ולותביה ר"ל לרבי יוחנן מהא משום דשני ליה היינו גוף אטום היינו מי שפניו טוחות

9 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

י בני רבי חייא נפיק לקרייתא אתו לקמיה דאבוהון אמר להם כלום בא מעשה לידכם אמרו לו פנים טוחות בא לידינו וטימאנוה

10 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]?<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'? ');">29 — 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. ');">30

יא אמר להם צאו וטהרו מה שטמאתם מאי דעתייכו לחומרא חומרא דאתיא לידי קולא היא דקיהביתו לה ימי טוהר

11 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;<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). ');">32 but this is a restriction that results in a relaxation, for thereby33

יב איתמר המפלת בריה שיש לה ב' גבים וב' שדראות אמר רב באשה אינו ולד בבהמה אסור באכילה ושמואל אמר באשה ולד בבהמה מותר באכילה

12 you also allow her34 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. ');">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

יג במאי קמיפלגי בדרב חנין בר אבא דאמר רב חנין בר אבא השסועה בריה שיש לה ב' גבין וב' שדראות

13 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

יד רב אמר בריה בעלמא ליתא וכי אגמריה רחמנא למשה במעי אמה אגמריה ושמואל אמר בריה בעלמא איתא וכי אגמריה רחמנא למשה בעלמא אגמריה אבל במעי אמה שריא

14 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

טו איתיביה רב שימי בר חייא לרב רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר כל שיש לו ב' גבין ושני שדראות פסול לעבודה אלמא דחיי (וקשיא לרב) א"ל שימי את ששדרתו עקומה

15 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?<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'. ');">48 — 'Is it you, Shimi?' the other49 replied, 'this50

טז מיתיבי יש בעוברין שהן אסורין בן ארבעה לדקה בן שמנה לגסה הימנו ולמטה אסור יצא מי שיש לו שני גבין ושני שדראות

16 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

יז מאי יצא לאו יצא מכלל עוברין שאפילו במעי אמן אסורין

17 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

יח רב מתרץ לטעמיה ושמואל מתרץ לטעמיה רב מתרץ לטעמיה בן ארבעה לדקה בן ח' לגסה הימנו ולמטה אסור

18 in that it is forbidden to be eaten even while still in its dam's body?57 — 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. ');">58 explains in accordance with his own view, and Samuel59

יט במה דברים אמורים כשיצא לאויר העולם אבל במעי אמו שרי יצא מי שיש לו שני גבין ושני שדראות דאפילו במעי אמו נמי אסור

19 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.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter