Niddah 55

Chapter 55

א וטהרו לו פתחים קטנים וקא דייקת מינה טעמא דשלדו קיימת הא לאו הכי טהור

1 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

ב אדרבה דוק מינה להאי גיסא שלדו קיימת הוא דטהרו לו פתחים קטנים הא לאו הכי פתחים קטנים נמי טמאין דכל חד וחד חזי לאפוקי חד חד אבר

2 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

ג א"ל רבינא לרב אשי ר' יוחנן דאמר כמאן כר' אליעזר דתנן אפר שרופין ר"א אומר שיעור' ברובע

3 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Katabela, cf. [G] (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. ');">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

ד היכי דמי מת שנשרף ושלדו קיימת אמר אביי כגון ששרפו על גבי קטבלא רבא אמר כגון ששרפו על גבי אפודרים רבינא אמר כגון דאיחרכי אחרוכי

4 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

ה ת"ר המפלת יד חתוכה ורגל חתוכה אמו טמאה לידה ואין חוששין שמא מגוף אטום באו

5 her bearing took place long ago.17 R. Joseph raised an objection: If a woman aborted an embryo and18

ו רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא דאמרי תרוייהו אין נותנין לה ימי טוהר מ"ט אימא הרחיקה לידתה

6 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

ז מתיב רב יוסף המפלת ואין ידוע מה הפילה תשב לזכר ולנקבה ואי ס"ד כל כהאי גוונא אימא הרחיקה לידתה לתני ולנדה

7 that in any such case21 it might be assumed that her bearing took place long ago,22 why23

ח אמר אביי אי תנא לנדה הוה אמינא מביאה קרבן ואינו נאכל קמ"ל דנאכל

8 was it not also stated, 'and as for menstruation'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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). ');">24 — Abaye replied: If 'as for menstruation' had been mentioned it might have been presumed that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">25

ט אמר רב הונא הוציא עובר את ידו והחזירה אמו טמאה לידה שנאמר (בראשית לח, כח) ויהי בלדתה ויתן יד

9 she brings a sacrifice26 which27 may not be eaten; hence we were informed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">28 that it may be eaten.29

י מתיב רב יהודה הוציא עובר את ידו אין אמו חוששת לכל דבר אמר רב נחמן לדידי מיפרשא לי מיניה דרב הונא לחוש חוששת ימי טוהר לא יהבינן לה עד דנפיק רוביה

10 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

יא והא אין אמו חוששת לכל דבר קאמר אמר אביי אינה חוששת לכל דבר מדאורייתא אבל מדרבנן חוששת והא קרא קאמר מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא

11 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

יב <big>מתני׳</big> המפלת טומטום ואנדרוגינוס תשב לזכר ולנקבה

12 SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN HER UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR BOTH A MALE39

יג טומטום וזכר אנדרוגינוס וזכר תשב לזכר ולנקבה טומטום ונקבה אנדרוגינוס ונקבה תשב לנקבה בלבד

13 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

יד יצא מחותך או מסורס משיצא רובו הרי הוא כילוד יצא כדרכו עד שיצא רוב ראשו ואיזהו רוב ראשו משיצא פדחתו

14 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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). ');">41 IF THE EMBRYO ISSUED IN PIECES42

טו <big>גמ׳</big> השתא טומטום לחודיה ואנדרוגינוס לחודיה אמר תשב לזכר ולנקבה טומטום וזכר אנדרוגינוס וזכר מיבעיא

15 OR IN A REVERSED POSITION43

טז איצטריך מהו דתימ' הואיל וא"ר יצחק אשה מזרעת תחל' יולדת זכר איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקבה אימא מדהאי זכר האי נמי זכר קמ"ל אימא שניהם הזריעו בבת אחת זו זכר וזה נקבה

16 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

יז אמר ר"נ אמר רב טומטום ואנדרוגינוס שראו לובן או אודם אין חייבין על ביאת מקדש ואין שורפין עליהם את התרומה

17 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

יח ראו לובן ואודם כאחד אין חייבין על ביאת מקדש אבל שורפין עליהם את התרומה שנאמר (במדבר ה׳:ג׳ ) מזכר ועד נקבה

18 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 Sanctuary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">52 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

Previous Chapter Next Chapter