## Niddah Daf 23a

###### Niddah 23a:1
[Niddah 23a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:1)

וְיָלְפִינַן מוּפְנָה מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין. וּלְהָכִי אַפְנְיֵהּ רַחֲמָנָא לִבְהֵמָה מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא נִגְמַר מִן מוּפְנָה מִצַּד אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and derive** the *halakha* from the analogy that is **free on both sides. And** it is **for this** reason that **the Merciful One rendered** the verbal analogy between **animal** and man **free on both sides, so that one would not derive** the *halakha* **from** the verbal analogy between sea monster and man, which is **free on** only **one side.**


###### Niddah 23a:2
[Niddah 23a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:2)

רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְקוּלָּא: כׇּל גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מוּפְנָה כׇּל עִיקָּר — לְמֵדִין וּמְשִׁיבִין, מוּפְנָה מִצַּד אֶחָד — לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לְמֵדִין וְאֵין מְשִׁיבִין, לְרַבָּנַן לְמֵדִין וּמְשִׁיבִין, מוּפְנָה מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לְמֵדִין וְאֵין מְשִׁיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, teaches in the name of Rabbi Elazar** a more **lenient** version of the aforementioned principle of exegesis of verbal analogy: With regard to **any verbal analogy that is not free at all, one can derive** *halakhot* from it, **but one can** also **refute** it logically. If the verbal analogy is **free on one side, according to Rabbi Yishmael one can derive** *halakhot* from it, **and one cannot refute** it. **According to the Rabbis, one can derive** *halakhot* from it, **but one can** also **refute** it. If the verbal analogy is **free on both sides, everyone agrees** that **one can derive** *halakhot* from it **and one cannot refute** it.


###### Niddah 23a:3
[Niddah 23a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:3)

וּלְרַבָּנַן, מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין מוּפְנָה מִצַּד אֶחָד לְשֶׁאֵינָהּ מוּפְנָה כׇּל עִיקָּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **according to the Rabbis, what** difference **is there between** a verbal analogy that is **free on one side and** one **that is not free at all?** In both cases, the Rabbis hold that one can derive *halakhot* from such a verbal analogy but one can also refute it.


###### Niddah 23a:4
[Niddah 23a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:4)

נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ הֵיכָא דְּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ מוּפְנָה מִצַּד אֶחָד, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ מוּפְנָה כׇּל עִיקָּר, וְלָאו לְהַאי אִית לֵיהּ פִּירְכָא, וְלָאו לְהַאי אִית לֵיהּ פִּירְכָא — שָׁבְקִינַן שֶׁאֵינָהּ מוּפְנָה כׇּל עִיקָּר, וְגָמְרִינַן מִמּוּפְנָה מִצַּד אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The **difference** is in a case **where you find** two mutually exclusive verbal analogies, one that is **free on one side and** one **that is not free at all, and neither** does **this one have** a logical **refutation nor** does **that one have** a logical **refutation.** In such a case, **we disregard** the analogy **that is not free at all, and we derive** the *halakha* **from** the one that is **free on one side.**


###### Niddah 23a:5
[Niddah 23a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:5)

וְהָכָא, מַאי פִּירְכָא אִיכָּא? מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְאָדָם, שֶׁכֵּן מִטַּמֵּא מֵחַיִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And here,** with regard to the verbal analogy between man and sea monster, which was rejected because it is free on only one side, **what** logical **refutation is there** on account of which this verbal analogy is rejected? The Gemara answers: The verbal analogy between man and sea monster is rejected **because it can be refuted** as follows: **What** is unique **about man?** Man is unique **in that** a person can **become impure while he is alive,** unlike an animal, which can become impure only after it dies, or a sea monster, which cannot become impure at all.


###### Niddah 23a:6
[Niddah 23a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:6)

וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר — הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֶמְרָה בּוֹ ״יְצִירָה״ כְּאָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And likewise, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Meir,** that a woman who discharges an item similar to a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird is impure: It is **because formation is stated with regard to** the creation of these animals, **just as** it is stated with regard to the creation of **man.**


###### Niddah 23a:7
[Niddah 23a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה הַמַּפֶּלֶת דְּמוּת הַר — אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כִּי הִנֵּה יוֹצֵר הָרִים וּבוֹרֵא רוּחַ״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַר מִי קָא מַפְּלָה? אֶבֶן הִיא דְּקָא מַפְּלָה, הָהוּא ״גּוּשׁ״ אִיקְּרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ami said to him: If that is so,** then in the case of a woman **who discharges** an item that has **the shape of a mountain, its mother** should be **impure** with the impurity of a woman after **childbirth, as it is stated** with regard to the creation of mountains: **“For He Who forms the mountains and creates the wind”** (Amos 4:13). Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba **said to him: Does she discharge a mountain?** The discharged item cannot possibly be that large. **It is** an item with the form of **a stone that she discharges,** and **that is called a clod,** not a mountain.


###### Niddah 23a:8
[Niddah 23a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:8)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה הַמַּפֶּלֶת רוּחַ — תְּהֵא אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה, הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֶמְרָה בּוֹ ״בְּרִיאָה״ כְּאָדָם, דִּכְתִיב ״וּבוֹרֵא רוּחַ״? וְכִי תֵימָא לֹא מוּפְנֶה, מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּב ״יוֹצֵר הָרִים וְרוּחַ״, וּכְתִיב ״וּבוֹרֵא רוּחַ״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְאַפְנוֹיֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ami further inquired: **If that is so,** in the case of a woman **who discharges** an item having **an amorphous form [*ruaḥ*], its mother should be impure** with the impurity of a woman after **childbirth, since creation is stated with regard to it, just as** it is stated with regard to **man, as it is written: “And creates the wind [*ruaḥ*].” And if you would say** that no verbal analogy can be drawn here, because the verse **is not free,** i.e., it is not superfluous, as it is necessary to recount the creation of the wind, that is not so. Rabbi Ami explains: **From** the fact **that** the verse **could have written: Who forms the mountains and the wind, and** instead **it is written:** “Who forms the mountains **and creates the wind,” conclude from it** that the superfluous word “creates” serves **to render it free** for drawing a verbal analogy between *ruaḥ* and man.


###### Niddah 23a:9
[Niddah 23a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דָּנִין דִבְרֵי תוֹרָה מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, וְאֵין דָּנִין דִבְרֵי תוֹרָה מִדִּבְרֵי קַבָּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba **said to** Rabbi Ami: **One derives matters** that are stated in the **Torah from matters** that are stated in the **Torah,** i.e., from verses in the Torah, **but one does not derive matters** that are stated in the **Torah from the words of the tradition,** i.e., verses in the Prophets or the Writings, such as the verse in Amos.


###### Niddah 23a:10
[Niddah 23a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:10)

(אָמַר) רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר — הוֹאִיל וְעֵינֵיהֶם דּוֹמוֹת כְּשֶׁל אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba bar bar Ḥana** said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Meir: Since the eyes of** these animals **are similar to those of a human,** a woman who discharges an item of that type is impure.


###### Niddah 23a:11
[Niddah 23a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:11)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הַמַּפֶּלֶת דְּמוּת נָחָשׁ תְּהֵא אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה, הוֹאִיל וְגַלְגַּל עֵינוֹ עָגוֹלה כְּשֶׁל אָדָם! וְכִי תֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, לִיתְנֵי נָחָשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **If that is so,** then in the case of a woman **who discharges** an item that has **the form of a snake, its mother should** likewise **be impure** with the impurity of a woman after **childbirth, since the pupil of** a snake **is round, like** that **of a human. And if you would say** that **indeed,** this is the *halakha*, then **let** the mishna **teach** this case of a woman who discharges an item that has the form of **a snake** among the other cases where the woman discharges an item of an unusual form.


###### Niddah 23a:12
[Niddah 23a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:12)

אִי תְּנָא נָחָשׁ, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: בְּנָחָשׁ הוּא דִּפְלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״יְצִירָה״, אֲבָל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה — לָא פְּלִיגִי, דִּכְתִיבָא (ביה) [בְּיהוּ] ״יְצִירָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **If** the mishna had **taught** the case of **a snake, I would say** that it **is** only **in** the case of a woman who discharges an item having the form of **a snake that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir** and rule that the woman is not impure, **as** a term of **formation is not written with regard to** the creation of the snake. **But** with regard to a woman who discharges an item having the form of **a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal, they do not disagree** with Rabbi Meir, **as** the concept of **formation is written with regard to them.**


###### Niddah 23a:13
[Niddah 23a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:13)

וְהָא גַּבֵּי מוּמִין קָתָנֵי לַהּ: אֶת שֶׁגַּלְגַּל עֵינוֹ עָגוֹל כְּשֶׁל אָדָם! לָא קַשְׁיָא — הָא בְּאוּכָּמָא, הָא בְּצִירְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But with regard to** the *halakhot* of **blemishes** that render the slaughter of a firstborn animal permitted, **it is taught** in a mishna (*Bekhorot* 40a) that an animal **whose pupil is round like** that **of a human** is considered blemished. Evidently, the eyes of animals are dissimilar to those of humans. The Gemara answers that it is **not difficult; this** statement, that the eyes of animals are similar to those of humans, is referring **to** the **pupil,** and **that** statement, that the eyes of animals are not similar to those of humans, is referring **to** the entire eyeball in the **socket.**


###### Niddah 23a:14
[Niddah 23a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:14)

רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר — הוֹאִיל וְעֵינֵיהֶם הוֹלְכוֹת לִפְנֵיהֶם כְּשֶׁל אָדָם. וַהֲרֵי עוֹף, דְּאֵין עֵינָיו הוֹלְכוֹת לְפָנָיו, וְקָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּטָמֵא! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּקַרְיָא וְקִיפוֹפָא, וּבִשְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yannai said: This is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Meir:** It is **because the eyes of** these animals **are fixed in the front of** their heads **like** those **of a human,** unlike the eyes of birds and snakes, a woman who discharges an item of that kind is impure. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** there is the case of a woman who discharges an item similar to **a bird, whose eyes are not fixed in the front of** its head, **and** nevertheless **Rabbi Meir says that** the woman **is impure.** This apparently contradicts Rabbi Yannai’s explanation. **Abaye said:** Rabbi Meir is referring **to** the **little owl [*bekarya*] and** the **great owl [*vekifofa*],** whose eyes are fixed in the front of their heads, **but in** the case of a woman who discharges any of the **other** species of **birds,** Rabbi Meir does **not** deem her impure.


###### Niddah 23a:15
[Niddah 23a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:15)

מֵיתִיבִי: רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר: נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר בִּבְהֵמָה וְחַיָּה, וְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים בְּעוֹפוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to this answer from a *baraita*: **Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: The statement of Rabbi Meir seems** correct **in** the case of a woman who discharges the form of **a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal, and the statement of the Rabbis** seems correct **in** the case of **birds.**


###### Niddah 23a:16
[Niddah 23a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:16)

מַאי עוֹפוֹת? אִילֵּימָא בְּקַרְיָא וְקִיפוֹפָא, מַאי שְׁנָא בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה דְּעֵינֵיהֶן הוֹלְכוֹת לִפְנֵיהֶן כְּשֶׁל אָדָם? קַרְיָא וְקִיפוֹפָא נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: To **what birds** is Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus referring? **If we say** he is referring **to** the **little owl and** the **great owl, what is the difference** between this case and the cases of **a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal,** with regard to which Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus accepts the opinion of Rabbi Meir? If the key factor is **that their eyes are fixed in the front of** their heads **like** those **of a human,** Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus should accept the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the case of **a little owl or a great owl as well,** as their eyes are also fixed in the front of their heads.


###### Niddah 23a:17
[Niddah 23a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:17)

אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בִּשְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר פְּלִיג בִּשְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is **obvious** that when Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says that he does not accept the opinion of Rabbi Meir, he is referring **to** the **other** species of **birds. From the fact** that it is necessary for Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus to reject Rabbi Meir’s opinion in those cases, it may be concluded that **Rabbi Meir** himself **disagrees** with the Rabbis **with regard to** the **other** species of **birds** as well, despite the fact that their eyes are not fixed in the front of their heads.


###### Niddah 23a:18
[Niddah 23a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:18)

חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר — נִרְאִין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר בִּבְהֵמָה וְחַיָּה, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְקַרְיָא וְקִיפוֹפָא, וְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים בִּשְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת, שֶׁאַף רַבִּי מֵאִיר לֹא נֶחְלַק עִמָּהֶם אֶלָּא בְּקַרְיָא וְקִיפוֹפָא, אֲבָל בִּשְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת — מוֹדֵי לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that the *baraita* **is incomplete, and this** is what **it is teaching: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: The statement of Rabbi Meir seems** correct **in** the case of **a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal, and the same is true with regard to a little owl or a great owl. And the statement of the Rabbis** appears correct even to Rabbi Meir **with regard to** the **other** species of **birds.** The reason is **that even Rabbi Meir** agrees that if a woman discharges an item that has the form of one of the other species of birds, she is not impure, i.e., he **disagrees with them only with regard to a little owl or a great owl, but he concedes to** their opinion **with regard to** the **other** species of **birds.**


###### Niddah 23a:19
[Niddah 23a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:19)

וְהָתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק: הַמַּפֶּלֶת מִין בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — וָלָד, וּלְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים — אֵינוֹ וָלָד. בְּעוֹפוֹת — תִּיבָּדֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites proof for Abaye’s claim that Rabbi Meir differentiates between an owl and other species of birds, **as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says:** In the case of a woman **who discharges** an item that has the form of **a type of domesticated animal or undomesticated animal, according to the statement of Rabbi Meir** it has the halakhic status of a full-fledged **offspring, and according to the statement of the Rabbis,** it does **not** have the status of a full-fledged **offspring. In** the case of a woman who discharges an item that has the form of **birds, it must be examined.**


###### Niddah 23a:20
[Niddah 23a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:20)

לְמַאן תִּיבָּדֵק? לָאו לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: קַרְיָא וְקִיפוֹפָא — אִין, שְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת — לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **According to whom must it be examined?** Is this **not** referring **to the statement of Rabbi Meir, who said** that if a woman discharges an item that has the form of **a little owl or a great owl, yes,** she is impure, but if she discharges an item that has the form of **other birds,** she is **not** impure? Consequently, the item must be examined to determine what type of bird it resembles.


###### Niddah 23a:21
[Niddah 23a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:21)

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: לָא, תִּיבָּדֵק לְרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: קַרְיָא וְקִיפוֹפָא — אִין, שְׁאָר עוֹפוֹת — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: No,** this *baraita* does not prove that Rabbi Meir differentiates between owls and other species of birds, as perhaps the statement that the discharged item **must be examined** applies **according to the Rabbis, as they say** that if a woman discharges an item that has the form of **a little owl or a great owl, yes,** she is impure, but if a woman discharges an item that has the form of **other birds,** she is **not** impure.


###### Niddah 23a:22
[Niddah 23a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:22)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא קַרְיָא וְקִיפוֹפָא מִבְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה? הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן לְסָתוֹת כְּאָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if the Rabbis hold that a woman who discharges an item similar to a land animal is not impure, why would they hold that if she discharges an item that has the form of owls she is impure? **What is the difference** between **a little owl and a great owl** on the one hand, and **a domesticated animal and an undomesticated animal** on the other? The Gemara answers: **Since** owls **have cheeks like** those of **a human,** therefore a woman who discharges an item similar to an owl is impure, whereas if she discharges an item that has the form of a land animal she is pure, despite the fact that their eyes are fixed in the front of their heads.


###### Niddah 23a:23
[Niddah 23a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:23)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מֵרַבִּי זֵירָא: לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר בְּהֵמָה בִּמְעֵי אִשָּׁה וָלָד מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, קִבֵּל בָּהּ אָבִיהָ קִידּוּשִׁין מַהוּ? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְאִיתְּסוֹרֵי בַּאֲחוֹתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: According to Rabbi Meir, who said** that **an animal in the womb of a woman is** considered **a full-fledged offspring, what is** the *halakha* in a case where it is a female, and **her father accepted betrothal for her,** i.e., he married her off by accepting betrothal money from a man, or a document of betrothal? Is such a betrothal valid? Rabbi Yirmeya elaborated: **What** practical **difference is** there whether it is valid? The difference is **with regard to** whether it is **prohibited** for the man **to** marry **her sister.** If the betrothal is valid, it is prohibited for the husband to marry her sister, as one may not marry his wife’s sister.


###### Niddah 23a:24
[Niddah 23a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:24)

לְמֵימְרָא דְּחָיֵי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא אֲמָרָהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר אֶלָּא הוֹאִיל וּבְמִינוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים! אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: עַד כָּאן הֱבִיאוֹ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא לִידֵי גִּיחוּךְ, וְלֹא גִּחֵיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is this to say that** such an offspring **can live?** This factor is important, as a man is prohibited from marrying his wife’s sister only during his wife’s lifetime. **But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say** that **Rav says: Rabbi Meir said** that a woman who discharges an item that has the form of an animal is impure **only since** there are other animals **of its type** that can **live,** i.e., there are animals similar to the discharged item that do survive, but not that creature itself. **Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: Rabbi Yirmeya tried this hard to cause Rabbi Zeira to laugh, but he did not laugh.** In other words, Rabbi Yirmeya was not asking his question seriously.


###### Niddah 23a:25
[Niddah 23a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/23a:25)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא אֲמָרָהּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר אֶלָּא הוֹאִיל וּבְמִינוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים. אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה מִדִּפְתִּי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses **the** matter **itself. Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says: Rabbi Meir said** that a woman who discharges an item that has the form of an animal is impure **only since** there are animals **of its type** that can **live. Rav Yirmeya of Difti says:**