## Niddah Daf 23b

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

אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף — וָלָד מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ מִצּוּרַת אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We, too, learn** in a mishna (*Bekhorot* 46a) that the fetus of a woman that has the form of an animal cannot survive: In the case of a woman **who** had previously **discharged a fetus** with the appearance **similar to** that **of a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or bird** before giving birth to any children, and subsequently she gives birth to a son, the son is considered a firstborn with regard to the *halakhot* of inheritance, but he does not require redemption, as the fetus is considered a full-fledged offspring in that regard. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:** The son is not exempted from the requirement of redemption from a priest **unless** it follows the birth of a fetus **that takes the form of a person;** otherwise, it is not considered the offspring that “opens the womb” (Exodus 13:2), and the son requires redemption as a firstborn.


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

וְהַמַּפֶּלֶת סַנְדָּל, אוֹ שִׁלְיָא, אוֹ שָׁפִיר מְרוּקָּם, וְהַיּוֹצֵא מְחוּתָּךְ — הַבָּא אַחֲרָיו בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה, וְאֵינוֹ בְּכוֹר לְכֹהֵן. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ דְּחָיֵי, הַבָּא אַחֲרָיו בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה מִי הָוֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** in the case of a woman **who discharges** a fetus in the form of **a sandal fish, or** from whom **an afterbirth or a gestational sac** in which **tissue developed** emerged, **or** who delivered a fetus **that emerged in pieces,** the son **that follows them is** considered **a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to** redemption from **a priest.** The Gemara explains the proof: **And if it enters your mind that** a fetus that has the form of an animal **can survive, is the** son **that follows it a firstborn with regard to inheritance?**


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

אָמַר רָבָא: לְעוֹלָם דְּחָיֵי, וְשָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״רֵאשִׁית אוֹנוֹ״ — מִי שֶׁלִּבּוֹ דָּוֶה עָלָיו, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֵין לִבּוֹ דָּוֶה עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said,** in rejection of this proof: **Actually,** it is possible **that** a fetus shaped like an animal **can survive; but it is different there,** with regard to inheritance. The son that follows such a fetus has the status of a firstborn, **as the verse states** with regard to the inheritance of a firstborn: “By giving him a double portion of all that he has; for he is **the first fruits of his strength [*ono*];** the right of the firstborn is his” (Deuteronomy 21:17). It is derived from the verse that the status of a firstborn applies only to a son **over whose** death a father would **mourn.** The word *ono* is interpreted homiletically based on its similarity to the word *onen*, acute mourner. **This** offspring that has the form of an animal is therefore **excluded, as** its father **would not mourn over its** death.


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

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה מֵאַבָּיֵי: לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר בְּהֵמָה בִּמְעֵי אִשָּׁה וָלָד מְעַלְּיָא הוּא — אָדָם בִּמְעֵי בְהֵמָה מַאי? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינֵּיהּ? לְאִשְׁתְּרוֹיֵי בַּאֲכִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Adda bar Ahava asked Abaye: According to Rabbi Meir, who said** that an item that is similar to **an animal in the womb of a woman is** considered **a full-fledged offspring, what** is the *halakha* with regard to **a human** fetus **in the womb of an animal?** The Gemara explains: **What is the** practical **difference** of this inquiry? The difference is **with regard to permitting** the fetus **in consumption.** A full-fledged fetus found inside its slaughtered mother is permitted to be eaten, despite the fact that it was not slaughtered itself.


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

וְתִפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מֵהָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וּמָצָא בָּהּ דְּמוּת יוֹנָה — אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **But** one can **resolve** the dilemma **from that** statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** In the case of **one who slaughters an animal and finds in it** an item that has **the form of a pigeon,** the pigeon **is prohibited for consumption.** Evidently, the ritual slaughter of a pregnant animal renders its fetus permitted to be eaten only if the fetus is of the same species as the mother. Accordingly, if the fetus has the form of a human, it is prohibited for consumption.


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

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם — לָא פְּרָסוֹת אִיכָּא, וְלָא פַּרְסָה אִיכָּא; הָכָא — נְהִי דִּפְרָסוֹת לֵיכָּא, פַּרְסָה מִיהָא אִיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** with regard to a pigeon fetus, **there are no** split **hooves, and there is not** even **a hoof** at all. Since a pigeon is completely different from the slaughtered animal, the fetus is forbidden. By contrast, **here,** in the case of a human fetus, **although there are no** split **hooves, there is at least a hoof,** i.e., solid feet. Therefore, it is possible that the human fetus is permitted for consumption, and the dilemma remains unresolved.


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

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים: גּוּפוֹ תַּיִישׁ וּפָנָיו אָדָם — אָדָם, גּוּפוֹ אָדָם וּפָנָיו תַּיִישׁ — וְלֹא כְלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And the Rabbis say: Any** discharged entity **that is not** of human form does not render the woman impure. **Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says** that **Rav says: All concede** that if a woman discharged an entity **whose body is** that of **a goat and whose face is** that of **a human,** it is considered **a human** offspring, i.e., even the Rabbis rule that the woman is impure in this case. Likewise, if **its body is** that of **a human and its face is** that of **a goat,** Rabbi Meir concedes that **it is nothing,** and the woman is pure.


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

לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁפָּנָיו אָדָם, וְנִבְרָא בְּעַיִן אַחַת כִּבְהֵמָה. שֶׁרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר מִצּוּרַת אָדָם, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים כֹּל צוּרַת אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They disagree only** in a case **where its face is** that of **a human, but it was created with** one human eye and **one eye like** that of **an animal. As Rabbi Meir says** that if the offspring has part **of the form of a human** face, even if one eye is not like that of a human, it is considered a human offspring, and the woman is impure. **And the Rabbis say** that it must have **the entire form of a human** face to be considered a human offspring, and otherwise the woman is not impure.


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

(אָמַר לוֹ) [אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן] לְרַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: וְהָא אִיפְּכָא תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: ״כֹּל צוּרַת״, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: ״מִצּוּרַת״! אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִי תַּנְיָא — תַּנְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One of the Sages **said to Rav Yirmeya bar Abba: But isn’t the opposite taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Meir says** that a woman who discharged is impure if the fetus has **any** part of the **form** of a human face, **and the Rabbis say** that the woman is impure only if the fetus has a recognizable part **of the form of** a human face, e.g., half of a human face? According to this *baraita*, Rabbi Meir does not even require that a significant part of it must look human. In his opinion, even if it has only one human eye or one human cheek and the rest of the face is like that of an animal, the woman is impure. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba **said to** the Sages: **If this** *baraita* **is taught, it is taught,** and I cannot take issue with it. I have my tradition from Rav, and you should rule in accordance with the *baraita* that you received.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מֵצַח, וְהַגְּבִינִים, וְהָעֵינַיִם, וְהַלְּסָתוֹת, וְגַבּוֹת הַזָּקָן — עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ כּוּלָּם כְּאֶחָת. רָבָא אָמַר חַסָּא: מֵצַח, וְהַגָּבִין, וְהָעַיִן, וְהַלֶּסֶת, וְגַבַּת הַזָּקָן — עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ כּוּלָּם כְּאֶחָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** A woman who discharges an entity is impure only if the entire face of the fetus has a human form. This includes its **forehead, and the eyebrows, and the eyes, and the cheeks, and** its **chin.** The woman is not impure **unless** these facial features **all as one** have the human form. **Rava** says that **Ḥasa says:** It is sufficient for the fetus to have the appearance of a human on one side of its face; its **forehead, and** one **eyebrow, and** one **eye, and** one **cheek, and** its **chin** are enough. The woman is not impure **unless** these facial features **all as one** have the human form.


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

וְלָא פְלִיגִי: הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״כֹּל צוּרַת״, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״מִצּוּרַת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rabbi Yoḥanan and Ḥasa **do not disagree** about whether the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir or that of the Rabbis, as they both accept the opinion of the Rabbis. The difference between them is that **this** *amora*, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds **like the one who says** that the Rabbis require **the entire form of** the face to be human, and **that** *amora*, Ḥasa, holds **like the one who says** that the Rabbis require only a recognizable part **of the form of** a human face.


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

מֵיתִיבִי: צוּרַת פָּנִים שֶׁאָמְרוּ — אֲפִילּוּ פַּרְצוּף אֶחָד מִן הַפַּרְצוּפִין, חוּץ מִן הָאוֹזֶן. לְמֵימְרָא דְּמֵחַד נָמֵי סַגִּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ḥasa evidently interprets the version of the Rabbis’ statement that only part of a human face is required as referring to half of a human face. The Gemara **raises an objection** to this interpretation from a *baraita*: The miscarriage of a fetus with **the form of** a human **face, which** the Rabbis **said** renders the woman impure, includes **even one of the facial features, apart from the ear.** Apparently, **that is to say that** even **if** the fetus has only **one** facial feature of a human, this **is also sufficient** to render the woman impure.


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

אֲמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּי תַּנְיָא הַהִיא לְעַכֵּב תַּנְיָא, וּכְמַאן דְּאָמַר כֹּל צוּרַת, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִצּוּרַת, וּמַאי ״אֶחָד״ — אֶחָד אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says: When that** *baraita* **is taught, it is taught with regard to** the *halakha* of **rendering** all of the facial features **indispensable** for the fetus to be defined as human, except for the ear. **And** this ruling **is in accordance with the one who says** that the Rabbis require that **the entire form of** the face must be human. **And if you wish, say** that **actually** this ruling **is in accordance with the one who says** that the Rabbis require only a recognizable part **of the form of** a human face. **And what** is the meaning of the claim that it is sufficient for the fetus to have **one** facial feature of a human? It means **one of each** facial feature of which a human has two, i.e., one eye, one eyebrow, and so on.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: נִבְרָא בְּעַיִן אַחַת וּבְיָרֵךְ אֶחָד — מִן הַצַּד, אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה; בָּאֶמְצַע, אִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** In a case where a fetus **was created with one eye or with one thigh,** if the eye is located **to the side** on the middle of the face, or the thigh is located at the side of the hip, where a human eye or thigh is normally located, the fetus is considered human, and **its mother is impure.** If it appears **in the middle** of the face or hip, the fetus is not considered human, and **its mother is pure.**


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

אָמַר רָבָא: וִשְׁטוֹ נָקוּב — אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה, וִשְׁטוֹ אָטוּם — אִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** If **its esophagus is punctured,** although the fetus is considered a *tereifa*, i.e., one that has a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months, **its mother is impure.** But if **its esophagus is sealed,** i.e., it is closed at one end, it does not have the status of a human fetus, and therefore **its mother is pure.**


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּפֶּלֶת גּוּף אָטוּם — אֵין אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה. וְאֵיזֶהוּ גּוּף אָטוּם? רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּנָּטֵל מִן הַחַי וְיָמוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of a woman **who discharges** a fetus that has **a sealed body, its mother is not impure** with the impurity of a woman after **childbirth. And what is a sealed body? Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** It is a body which is lacking a limb that **when removed from a living** person would cause him to **die.**


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

וְכַמָּה יִנָּטֵל מִן הַחַי וְיָמוּת? רַבִּי זַכַּאי אוֹמֵר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And how much** of the lower part of a person’s body **when removed from a living** person would cause him to **die,** because one cannot survive such a wound? **Rabbi Zakkai says:**