Niddah 57
לחלק בין ערך איש לערך אשה
to indicate a distinction between the valuation of a man and the valuation of a woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the necessity for the additional 'the' and 'if' which serve the purpose of the deduction. In the text of Num. V, 3, however, the full expression of 'male and female', which could well have been condensed to 'man', clearly suggests the deduction made by Rab. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
יצא מחותך או מסורס וכו'
IF THE EMBRYO ISSUED IN PIECES OR IN A REVERSED CONDITION etc. R. Eleazar ruled: Even if the head was with them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With some of the pieces; sc. even in such a case the embryo is not deemed born unless ITS GREATER PART ISSUED FORTH. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אפילו הראש עמהן
was learnt only in a case where the head was not with them but where the head was with them the embryo is deemed born.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. marg. gl. Cur. edd. in parenthesis, 'the head exempts'. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
איכא דמתני לה להא שמעתתא באפי נפשה א"ר אלעזר
There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd. in parenthesis add; 'Another reading: The reason then is that it issued in pieces or in a reversed condition but if it issued in the normal manner the (putting out of the) head would have caused exemption. (Thus) both do not uphold Samuel's ruling, for Samuel said, The head does not exempt in the case of miscarriages'. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
תנן
but R. Johanan ruled: The head has the same status as the greater part of the limbs. They thus differ on the validity of Samuel's principle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar agreeing with Samuel while R. Johanan differs from him. According to the former version (which attaches the dispute to our Mishnah) it might be maintained (as has been submitted supra) that R. Eleazar also differs from him. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
יצא מחותך או מסורס משיצא רובו הרי הוא כילוד
We learnt: IF THE EMBRYO ISSUED IN PIECES OR IN A REVERSED POSITION IT IS DEEMED BORN AS SOON AS ITS GREATER PART ISSUED FORTH. Now since 'OR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. BaH. Cur. edd. omit. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
מדקאמר מסורס מכלל דמחותך כתקנו וקאמר משיצא רובו הרי זה כילוד
IN A REVERSED POSITION' was specifically stated it follows that 'IN PIECES' refers to one that issued in a normal position,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Head first. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
קשיא לרבי יוחנן
and yet it was stated, IT IS DEEMED BORN AS SOON AS ITS GREATER PART ISSUED. Does not this then present an objection against R. Johanan? — R. Johanan can answer you: Read, ISSUED IN PIECES and IN A REVERSED POSITION. But was it not stated 'OR'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can 'or' be understood as 'and'? ');"><sup>22</sup></span>
אמר לך רבי יוחנן
It is this that was meant: IF THE EMBRYO ISSUED IN PIECES OR whole, but in either case, IN A REVERSED POSITION, IT IS DEEMED BORN AS SOON AS ITS GREATER PART ISSUED FORTH. R. Papa stated, [This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan's ruling. ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
אימא יצא מחותך ומסורס
is] a matter of dispute between the following Tannas: 'If an embryo issued in pieces or in a reversed position it is deemed born as soon as its greater part issued forth. R. Jose ruled: Only when it issued in the normal way'. What does he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jose. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
יצא מחותך או מסורס משיצא רובו הרי הוא כילוד רבי יוסי אומר
R. Jose ruled: Only where its greater part issued in the normal manner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only then is the embryo deemed to have been born. According to R. Jose the issue of the greater part of the body (but with its feet first) or the lesser part (head first) constitutes no valid birth, since, wherever an embryo issued in pieces, both conditions are essential. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
מכלל דבמסורס רובו נמי לא פוטר הא קי"ל דרובו ככולו
If the embryo issued in pieces and in a reversed position it is deemed born as soon as its greater part issued forth, but [it follows] if it issued in the normal way the head alone causes exemption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. n. supra, sc. the embryo is deemed to have been born, in agreement with the view of R. Johanan. ');"><sup>28</sup></span>
רבי יוסי אומר
where it issued in the normal manner in a condition of viability.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not where the embryo issued in pieces when it cannot possibly live. In such a case the issue of the head constitutes no valid birth. ');"><sup>37</sup></span>
תניא נמי הכי
in a reversed position it is deemed born as soon as its greater part issued forth, but, it follows, if it issued in the normal way the head alone causes exemption. R. Jose ruled: Only when it issued in the normal manner in a condition of viability. And what is 'the normal manner in a condition of viability'? The issue<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when it went out'. ');"><sup>39</sup></span>
ואיזהו רוב ראשו
IT IS UNKNOWN WHAT WAS [THE SEX OF THE EMBRYO] SHE MUST CONTINUE [HER PERIODS OF UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR BOTH A MALE CHILD<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of cleanness: Only thirty-three days instead of sixty-six. ');"><sup>44</sup></span>
משיצאו צדעיו אבא חנן משום ר' יהושע אומר
IF IT IS UNKNOWN WHETHER IT WAS A CHILD OR NOT, SHE MUST CONTINUE [HER PERIODS OF CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS AS] FOR A MALE AND A FEMALE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. two notes. ');"><sup>46</sup></span>
משיצא פדחתו וי"א
AND AS A MENSTRUANT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. if she observes a discharge of blood even during the 'thirty-three clean' days, she must be regarded as menstrually unclean, since it is possible that the abortion was no child at all in consequence of which she is not entitled to any of the privileges of childbirth. ');"><sup>47</sup></span>
משיראו קרני ראשו
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Joshua b. Levi ruled: If a woman crossed a river and miscarried in it, she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the abortion was lost in the water and it is unknown whether it was an embryo or a mere inflated sac. ');"><sup>48</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המפלת ואין ידוע מהו תשב לזכר ולנקבה אין ידוע אם ולד היה אם לאו תשב לזכר ולנקבה ולנדה
must bring a sacrifice which may 'be eaten, since we are guided by the nature of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'follow'. ');"><sup>49</sup></span>
עברה נהר והפילה מביאה קרבן ונאכל הלך אחר רוב נשים ורוב נשים ולד מעליא ילדן
We learnt: IF IT IS UNKNOWN WHETHER IT WAS A CHILD OR NOT, SHE MUST CONTINUE [HER PERIODS OF CLEANNESS AND UNCLEANNESS AS] FOR A MALE AND A FEMALE AND AS A MENSTRUANT. But<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If R. Joshua b. Levi's argument is tenable. ');"><sup>50</sup></span>
תנן
why should she continue as a menstruant. Why should it not be said, 'Be guided by the nature of the majority of women and the majority of women bear normal children'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And consequently she ought to be entitled, at least, to the thirty-three clean days prescribed for a male birth (during which she is exempt from all menstrual uncleanness). ');"><sup>51</sup></span>
אין ידוע אם ולד היה תשב לזכר ולנקבה ולנדה
— Our Mishnah deals with a case where there was no presumption of the existence of an embryo,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule of the majority is consequently inapplicable. ');"><sup>52</sup></span>
ת"ש
empty, the young that is born subsequently is deemed to be a firstling of a doubtful nature'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is unknown whether it followed the birth of a developed embryo, in which case it is no firstling, or the abortion of an inflated sac, in which case it is a valid firstling. A doubtful firstling may be eaten by its owner after it had contracted a blemish and the priest has no claim upon it. ');"><sup>56</sup></span>
ואמאי
why [should its nature be a matter of doubt]? [Why not] be guided by the majority of beasts and, since the majority of beasts bear normal young, this one also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having thus been born after the birth of a normal one. ');"><sup>57</sup></span>
הלך אחר רוב בהמות ורוב בהמות ולד מעליא ילדן והאי פשוט הוא
must be an ordinary beast?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not even a doubtful firstling, and its owner should consequently be allowed to eat it even if it had no blemish. ');"><sup>58</sup></span>
משום דאיכא למימר רוב בהמות יולדות דבר הפוטר מבכורה ומעוטן יולדות דבר שאינו פוטר מבכורה וכל היולדות מטנפות וזו הואיל ולא טנפה אתרע לה רובא
and a minority of them bear young that are not exempt from the law of the firstling but all that bear secrete,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A day prior to their delivery. ');"><sup>60</sup></span>
אי כל היולדות מטנפות הא מדלא מטנפה בכור מעליא הוא
and in the case of this beast, since it did not secrete, the majority rule has been impaired. If, however, all that bear secrete, must not the young, since this beast did not secrete, be a valid firstling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then was it described as one of a doubtful nature? ');"><sup>61</sup></span>
מתיב רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא טועה ולא ידענא מאי תיובתא
[from a Baraitha dealing with] a forgetful woman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'erring', a woman who does not remember the time of her delivery; v. supra 18b. ');"><sup>64</sup></span>