Niddah 57

Chapter 57

א לחלק בין ערך איש לערך אשה

1 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. ');">1

ב יצא מחותך או מסורס וכו' א"ר אלעזר אפילו הראש עמהן

2 IF THE EMBRYO ISSUED IN PIECES OR IN A REVERSED CONDITION etc. R. Eleazar ruled: Even if the head was with them;2 but R. Johanan ruled: This3 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.4

ג ור' יוחנן אמר לא שנו אלא שאין הראש עמהן אבל הראש עמהן הראש פוטר

3 May it be suggested that they5 differ on a principle of Samuel for Samuel has laid down: The head6

ד לימא בדשמואל קמיפלגי דאמר שמואל אין הראש פוטר בנפלים

4 does not exempt7 in the case of miscarriages?8

ה בשלם דכולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי במחותך דמר סבר בשלם הוא דקחשיב במחותך לא קחשיב ומר סבר במחותך נמי חשיב

5 — Where it9 is whole there is no difference of opinion whatever;10 they only differ in a case where it9 issued in pieces, one Master11 holding the opinion that the head is of importance12

ו לישנא אחרינא טעמא דיצא מחותך או מסורס הא כתקנו הראש פוטר תרוייהו לית להו דשמואל דאמר שמואל אין הראש פוטר בנפלים

6 only where the miscarriage is whole but where it is in pieces it is of no importance, while the other Master13 holds that even where it9 is in pieces the head is of importance.9

ז איכא דמתני לה להא שמעתתא באפי נפשה א"ר אלעזר אין הראש כרוב אברים ורבי יוחנן אמר הראש כרוב אברים וקמיפלגי בדשמואל

7 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'. ');">15 are some who teach this passage as an independent discussion:16 R. Eleazar ruled, The head17 has not the status of the greater part of the limbs18

ח תנן יצא מחותך או מסורס משיצא רובו הרי הוא כילוד מדקאמר מסורס מכלל דמחותך כתקנו וקאמר משיצא רובו הרי זה כילוד קשיא לרבי יוחנן

8 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. ');">19 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 'OR20 IN A REVERSED POSITION' was specifically stated it follows that 'IN PIECES' refers to one that issued in a normal position,21 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'?22

ט אמר לך רבי יוחנן אימא יצא מחותך ומסורס

9 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, [This23 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 he24

י והא או קתני הכי קאמר יצא מחותך או שלם וזה וזה מסורס משיצא רובו הרי זה כילוד

10 mean? — R. Papa replied: It is this that was meant:25 If the embryo issued in pieces and in a reversed position26 it is deemed born as soon as its greater part issued forth, but [it follows] if it issued in the normal way21

יא אמר רב פפא כתנאי יצא מחותך או מסורס משיצא רובו הרי הוא כילוד רבי יוסי אומר משיצא כתקנו מאי קאמר

11 the head alone27 causes exemption.28 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. ');">29 R. Zebid demurred:30 Thus it follows31

יב אמר רב פפא הכי קאמר יצא מחותך ומסורס משיצא רובו הרי הוא כילוד הא כתקנו הראש פוטר רבי יוסי אומר משיצא רובו כתקנו

12 that where the embryo issued in a reversed position32 even the issue of its greater part causes no exemption,31 but surely, have we not an established rule that the greater part33

יג מתקיף לה רב זביד מכלל דבמסורס רובו נמי לא פוטר הא קי"ל דרובו ככולו

13 counts as the whole? Rather, said R. Zebid, it is this that was meant:34 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.28

יד אלא אמר רב זביד הכי קאמר יצא מחותך ומסורס משיצא רובו הרי זה כילוד הא כתקנו הראש פוטר רבי יוסי אומר משיצא כתקנו לחיים

14 R. Jose35 ruled: Only36 where it issued in the normal manner in a condition of viability.37 So it was also taught: If the embryo issued in pieces and38

טו תניא נמי הכי יצא מחותך (או) מסורס משיצא רובו הרי זה כילוד הא כתקנו הראש פוטר ר' יוסי אומר משיצא כתקנו לחיים

15 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 issue39 of the greater part of its head. And what is meant by 'the greater part of its head'? R. Jose40 said: The issue of its temples. Abba Hanan citing R. Joshua said: The issue of its forehead; and some say: The appearance41 of the corners of its head.42

טז ואיזהו כתקנו לחיים משיצא רוב ראשו ואיזהו רוב ראשו ר' יוסי אומר משיצאו צדעיו אבא חנן משום ר' יהושע אומר משיצא פדחתו וי"א משיראו קרני ראשו

16 MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN ABORTED AND43 IT IS UNKNOWN WHAT WAS [THE SEX OF THE EMBRYO] SHE MUST CONTINUE [HER PERIODS OF UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR BOTH A MALE CHILD44 AND A FEMALE CHILD.45 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 FEMALE46 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. ');">47 GEMARA. R. Joshua b. Levi ruled: If a woman crossed a river and miscarried in it, she48

יז <big>מתני׳</big> המפלת ואין ידוע מהו תשב לזכר ולנקבה אין ידוע אם ולד היה אם לאו תשב לזכר ולנקבה ולנדה

17 must bring a sacrifice which may 'be eaten, since we are guided by the nature of49

יח <big>גמ׳</big> א"ר יהושע בן לוי עברה נהר והפילה מביאה קרבן ונאכל הלך אחר רוב נשים ורוב נשים ולד מעליא ילדן

18 the majority of women and the majority of women bear normal children. 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. But50

יט תנן אין ידוע אם ולד היה תשב לזכר ולנקבה ולנדה אמאי תשב לנדה לימא הלך אחר רוב נשים ורוב נשים ולד מעליא ילדן

19 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). ');">51 — Our Mishnah deals with a case where there was no presumption of the existence of an embryo,52 while R. Joshua b. Levi spoke of one where there was such presumption. Come and hear: 'If a beast went out53 full54

כ מתני' בשלא הוחזקה עוברה וכי קאמר ריב"ל כשהוחזקה עוברה

20 and returned55

כא ת"ש בהמה שיצאה מלאה ובאה ריקנית הבא אחריו בכור מספק

21 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. ');">56 But50

כב ואמאי הלך אחר רוב בהמות ורוב בהמות ולד מעליא ילדן והאי פשוט הוא

22 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 also57 must be an ordinary beast?58

כג אמר רבינא 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

23 — Rabina replied, Because it may be said: Most beasts bear young that are exempt from the law of the firstling59 and a minority of them bear young that are not exempt from the law of the firstling but all that bear secrete,60

כד אי כל היולדות מטנפות הא מדלא מטנפה בכור מעליא הוא אלא אימא רוב יולדות מטנפות וזו הואיל ולא טנפה אתרע לה רובא

24 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?61 — Rather say: Most of those that bear secrete, and in the case of this beast, since it did not secrete, the majority rule is impaired. When Rabin came62

כה כי אתא רבין אמר מתיב רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא טועה ולא ידענא מאי תיובתא מאי היא דתניא

25 he stated: 'R. Jose b. Hanina raised an objection63 [from a Baraitha dealing with] a forgetful woman,64 but I do not know what objection it was'. What was it? — It was taught:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter