## Niddah Daf 24a

###### Niddah 24a:1
[Niddah 24a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:1)

עַד הָאַרְכּוּבָּה. רַבִּי יַנַּאי אוֹמֵר: עַד לִנְקָבָיו, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: עַד מְקוֹם טַבּוּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Until** above **the knee. Rabbi Yannai says: Until his orifices. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Yehoshua: Until the location of his navel.**


###### Niddah 24a:2
[Niddah 24a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:2)

בֵּין רַבִּי זַכַּאי לְרַבִּי יַנַּאי אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ ״טְרֵפָה חַיָּה״, מָר סָבַר ״טְרֵפָה חַיָּה״, וּמָר סָבַר ״טְרֵפָה אֵינָהּ חַיָּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the dispute between the *amora’im*: The difference **between** the opinion of **Rabbi Zakkai and** that of **Rabbi Yannai** is whether **a *tereifa* can survive** beyond twelve months. One **Sage,** Rabbi Yannai, **holds** that **a *tereifa* can survive** beyond twelve months. Therefore, although one whose legs were removed until above the knee has the status of a *tereifa*, if a woman discharges a fetus of this form she is impure. Only if the fetus lacks legs until his orifices is the woman pure, as such a person cannot survive. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Zakkai, **holds** that **a *tereifa* cannot survive** beyond twelve months. Therefore, even if the fetus lacks legs only from above the knee and not from his orifices, the woman is not impure.


###### Niddah 24a:3
[Niddah 24a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:3)

בֵּין רַבִּי יַנַּאי לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: (ניטל) [נִיטְּלָה] יָרֵךְ וְחָלָל שֶׁלָּהּ — נְבֵלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The difference **between** the opinion of **Rabbi Yannai and** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who both agree that a *tereifa* can survive, is with regard to a statement **of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said:** If the **thigh,** i.e., the hind leg of the animal, **and its recess were removed** from an animal before slaughter, the animal is considered **an unslaughtered carcass;** consequently, it is forbidden in consumption and imparts ritual impurity even while still alive. Rabbi Yannai agrees with the statement of Rabbi Elazar, and accordingly holds that if the lower part of a person’s body until his orifices is missing or removed, the person immediately assumes the halakhic status of a corpse. Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees with Rabbi Elazar and holds that one whose lower part of his body was missing or removed has the status of a corpse only if it is removed until his navel.


###### Niddah 24a:4
[Niddah 24a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:4)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַחְלוֹקֶת מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה, אֲבָל מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה אֲפִילּוּ כֹּל דְּהוּ — טְהוֹרָה. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמַּפֶּלֶת אֶת שֶׁגּוּלְגׇּלְתּוֹ אֲטוּמָה — אִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says:** The **dispute** between the *amora’im* is with regard to a fetus that is lacking part of its body **from below** to **above,** i.e., the lower part of his body; **but** if it is lacking part of its body **from above** to **below, even any amount** of its skull, the woman **is pure. And likewise, Rav Giddel says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** In the case of a woman **who discharges** a fetus **whose skull is sealed,** i.e., deficient, **its mother is pure.**


###### Niddah 24a:5
[Niddah 24a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:5)

וְאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין אַפָּקוּתָא דְּדִיקְלָא — אִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites another *halakha*: **And Rav Giddel says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** In the case of a woman **who discharges** a fetus that looks **like** the part **of a palm tree** that **branches out,** i.e., the lower part of its body is formless while the upper part has arms and legs coming out of its shoulders like branches, **its mother is pure.**


###### Niddah 24a:6
[Niddah 24a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:6)

אִיתְּמַר: הַמַּפֶּלֶת מִי שֶׁפָּנָיו מוּסְמָסִים, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It **was stated** with regard to a woman **who discharges** a fetus **whose face is mashed** but not completely flattened, that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says its mother is impure,** and **Reish Lakish says its mother is pure.**


###### Niddah 24a:7
[Niddah 24a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:7)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַמַּפֶּלֶת יָד חֲתוּכָה וְרֶגֶל חֲתוּכָה — אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה, וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא מִגּוּף אָטוּם בָּאתָה. וְאִם אִיתָא, לִיתְנֵי: שֶׁמָּא מִגּוּף אָטוּם אוֹ מִמִּי שֶׁפָּנָיו מוּסְמָסִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to Reish Lakish** from a *baraita*: In the case of a woman **who discharges a shaped hand,** i.e., a hand whose fingers are discernible, **or a shaped foot, its mother is impure** with the impurity of a woman after **childbirth,** as it certainly came from a full-fledged fetus, **and we are not concerned** that **perhaps it came from** a fetus with **a sealed,** i.e., deficient, **body. And if it is so,** that a fetus with a mashed face does not render its mother impure, **let** the *baraita* **teach:** We are not concerned that **perhaps** it came **from** a fetus with **a sealed body or from one whose face is mashed.**


###### Niddah 24a:8
[Niddah 24a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:8)

אָמַר רַב פַּפֵּי: בְּפָנָיו מוּסְמָסִין — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דִּטְמֵאָה, כִּי פְּלִיגִי — בְּפָנָיו טוּחוֹת, וְאִיפְּכָא אִיתְּמַר: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אִמּוֹ טְהוֹרָה, וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappi says: In** a case where **its face is mashed, everyone agrees that** the woman **is impure. When they disagree,** it is **in** a case where **its face is** completely **flat,** i.e., none of its features are discernible; **and the opposite was stated: Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that **its mother is pure, and Reish Lakish says** that **its mother is impure.**


###### Niddah 24a:9
[Niddah 24a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:9)

וְלוֹתְבֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵהָא! מִשּׁוּם דְּשַׁנִּי לֵיהּ: הַיְינוּ גּוּף אָטוּם, הַיְינוּ מִי שֶׁפָּנָיו טוּחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** according to this version of the dispute, **let Reish Lakish raise an objection to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan from this** *baraita*, from which Rabbi Yoḥanan raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish according to the previous version of the dispute: If a woman who discharges a fetus whose face is flat is pure, the *baraita* should have stated that there is no concern that the hand or foot might have come from a fetus with a sealed body or one whose face is flat. The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish did not raise the objection, **because Rabbi Yoḥanan** would have **responded to him** that the status of **a sealed body is** the same as that of **one whose face is flat.** There is no reason to mention both types of deformities.


###### Niddah 24a:10
[Niddah 24a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:10)

בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא נְפוּק לְקִרְיָיתָא, אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דַּאֲבוּהוֹן, אָמַר לָהֶם: כְּלוּם בָּא מַעֲשֶׂה לְיֶדְכֶם? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: פָּנִים טוּחוֹת בָּא לְיָדֵינוּ, וְטִימֵּאנוּהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya went out to the villages** to inspect their father’s fields. When **they came** back **to their father, he said to them:** Wasn’t **any incident brought to you** for a halakhic ruling? **They said to him:** A case of a woman who discharged a fetus with **a flat face was brought to us, and we deemed her impure** with the impurity of a woman after childbirth.


###### Niddah 24a:11
[Niddah 24a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:11)

אָמַר לָהֶם: צְאוּ וְטַהֲרוּ מָה שֶׁטִּמֵּאתֶם. מַאי דַּעְתַּיְיכוּ, לְחוּמְרָא? חוּמְרָא דְּאָתְיָא לִידֵי קוּלָּא הִיא, דְּקָיָהֲבִיתוּ לַהּ יְמֵי טוֹהַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥiyya **said to them: Go out and deem pure that which you have deemed impure. What was your thinking** when you ruled that she is impure? Did you reason that as the matter is subject to a dispute, one should rule **stringently?** But your ruling **is a stringency that leads to a leniency, as you have given** the woman thirty-three **days of purity** after the birth of a male, following her period of impurity, which are the minimum days of purity established in the Torah for a woman who gave birth.


###### Niddah 24a:12
[Niddah 24a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:12)

אִיתְּמַר: הַמַּפֶּלֶת בְּרִיָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּים וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת, אָמַר רַב: בְּאִשָּׁה — אֵינוֹ וָלָד, בִּבְהֵמָה — אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּאִשָּׁה — וָלָד, בִּבְהֵמָה — מוּתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It was stated:** With regard to a woman or female animal **who discharges an entity that has two backs and two spines, Rav says** that **in** the case of the **woman,** her discharged fetus **is not** considered **an offspring,** as it cannot survive, and therefore the woman does not have the ritual impurity caused by childbirth, and **in** the case of the **animal,** its fetus **is prohibited for consumption. And Shmuel says: In** the case of **a woman,** the discharged fetus is considered **an offspring,** and the woman is impure, and **in** the case of **an animal,** the fetus is **permitted for consumption.**


###### Niddah 24a:13
[Niddah 24a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:13)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? בִּדְרַב חָנִין בַּר אַבָּא, דְּאָמַר רַב חָנִין בַּר אַבָּא: ״הַשְּׁסוּעָה״ — בְּרִיָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what do** Rav and Shmuel **disagree?** The Gemara answers: They disagree **concerning** the statement **of Rav Ḥanin bar Abba, as Rav Ḥanin bar Abba said:** The verse states: “Nevertheless these you shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only have the hoof cloven [*umimafrisei haparsa hashesua*]: The camel, and the hare, and the rock badger” (Deuteronomy 14:7). The apparently superfluous term ***hashesua*** is not a redundant description of the cloven hoof; it is referring to a separate **entity that has two backs and two spines** and therefore looks like an entirely cloven animal.


###### Niddah 24a:14
[Niddah 24a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:14)

רַב אָמַר: בְּרִיָּה בְּעָלְמָא לֵיתַהּ, וְכִי אַגְמְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה — בִּמְעֵי אִמָּהּ אַגְמְרֵיהּ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּרֵיהּ בְּעָלְמָא אִיתַאּ, וְכִי אַגְמְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה — בְּעָלְמָא אַגְמְרֵיהּ, אֲבָל בִּמְעֵי אִמָּהּ — שָׁרְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is with regard to this prohibition that Rav and Shmuel disagree. **Rav says** that **there is no** such living **entity in the world, and when the Merciful One taught** this prohibition **to Moses, he taught** it **to** him with regard to a fetus that has two backs and two spines that is found **in the womb of its mother** after slaughter. **And Shmuel says** that **there is** such **an entity in the world, and when the Merciful One taught** this prohibition **to Moses, he taught** it **to him** with regard to a living animal **in the world, but** a fetus that has two backs and two spines **in the womb of its mother is permitted** for consumption.


###### Niddah 24a:15
[Niddah 24a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:15)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר חִיָּיא לְרַב: רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר, כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת פָּסוּל לַעֲבוֹדָה, אַלְמָא דְּחָיֵי, וְקַשְׁיָא לְרַב! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁימִי אַתְּ! שֶׁשִּׁדְרָתוֹ עֲקוּמָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya raised an objection to Rav** from a *baraita*: **Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Any** priest **who has two backs and two spines is disqualified from** the Temple **service,** as he is blemished. **Evidently,** an entity **that** has two backs and two spines **can survive, and** this is **difficult for** the opinion of **Rav.** Rav **said to him: You are** clearly **Shimi,** i.e., you asked well. Yet the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus is not referring to one who literally has two backs and two spines, but rather **to** one **whose spine is crooked** and therefore appears as though he has two spines. One who actually has two backs and two spines cannot survive.


###### Niddah 24a:16
[Niddah 24a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:16)

מֵיתִיבִי: יֵשׁ בְּעוּבָּרִין שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין — בֶּן אַרְבָּעָה לְדַקָּה, בֶּן שְׁמֹנָה לְגַסָּה, הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְמַטָּה אָסוּר. יָצָא מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: Among discharged animal **fetuses, there are those that are forbidden** in consumption, as they have the halakhic status of carcasses of unslaughtered animals. Specifically, if an animal fetus is **born** in the **fourth** month of pregnancy in the case **of small** domesticated animals, where the pregnancy is normally five months long, or it is **born** in the **eighth** month of pregnancy in the case **of large** livestock, where the pregnancy is normally nine months long, or if the miscarriage occurred **from this** stage of the pregnancy **and earlier,** i.e., if the pregnancy ended before this stage, the animal is **forbidden.** This **excludes one that has two backs and two spines.**


###### Niddah 24a:17
[Niddah 24a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:17)

מַאי ״יָצָא״? לָאו יָצָא מִכְּלַל עוּבָּרִין, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְעֵי אִמָּן אֲסוּרִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** does the *baraita* mean when it states that an animal with two backs and two spines is **excluded?** Does it **not** mean that it is **excluded from the category of** those **fetuses,** which are permitted for consumption if found inside their mother’s womb, **as** such animals are **forbidden even** while they are **in the wombs of their mothers?** This contradicts the opinion of Shmuel, who holds that an animal fetus of that type is permitted for consumption.


###### Niddah 24a:18
[Niddah 24a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:18)

רַב מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ. רַב מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: בֶּן אַרְבָּעָה לְדַקָּה, בֶּן שְׁמוֹנֶה לְגַסָּה, הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְמַטָּה — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rav explains** the *baraita* **according to his** line of **reasoning, and Shmuel explains** the *baraita* **according to his** line of **reasoning. Rav explains** the *baraita* **according to his** line of **reasoning,** as was assumed above: If an animal fetus is **born** in the **fourth** month of pregnancy in the case **of small** domesticated animals, or it is **born** in the **eighth** month of pregnancy in the case **of large** livestock, or if it was born **from this** stage of the pregnancy **and earlier,** the animal is **forbidden.**


###### Niddah 24a:19
[Niddah 24a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/24a:19)

בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? כְּשֶׁיָּצָא לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם, אֲבָל בִּמְעֵי אִמּוֹ — שְׁרֵי. יָצָא מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְעֵי אִמּוֹ נָמֵי אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In what** case **is this statement said?** In a case **where** the animal **emerged into the airspace of the world; but** if it was found **in its mother’s womb** after its mother was slaughtered, **it is permitted for** consumption. This **excludes** the case of a fetus **that has two backs and two spines, as even** if it is found **in the womb of its mother it is prohibited.**