## Niddah Daf 8b

###### Niddah 8b:1
[Niddah 8b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:1)

וְהָא קַשִּׁישׁ מִינֵּיהּ טוּבָא! אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּקָאֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּשִׁיטְתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** wasn’t Rabbi Eliezer **much older than** Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel? How could Rabbi Eliezer have cited the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel? The Gemara answers: **Rather,** the reason Rabbi Elazar ruled that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in that case was **because Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel held in accordance with his** opinion.


###### Niddah 8b:2
[Niddah 8b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:2)

וּמִי קָאֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: אוֹר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים — מִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁבַע וּמִתְוַדֶּה, שַׁחֲרִית — מִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁבַע וּמִתְוַדֶּה, מוּסָף — מִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁבַע וּמִתְוַדֶּה, מִנְחָה — מִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁבַע וּמִתְוַדֶּה, בִּנְעִילָה — מִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁבַע וּמִתְוַדֶּה, בְּעַרְבִית — מִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁבַע מֵעֵין שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And does** Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel really **hold** in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: On **the night of Yom Kippur, one prays seven** blessings in the *Amida* prayer **and confesses;** in the **morning prayer, one prays seven** blessings **and confesses;** in the **additional prayer, one prays seven** blessings **and confesses;** in the **afternoon prayer, one prays seven** blessings **and confesses;** and **in** the ***ne’ila* prayer, one** also **prays seven** blessings **and confesses. For the evening prayer** at the conclusion of Yom Kippur, **one prays seven** blessings in **an abridged** version of the **eighteen** blessings of the weekday *Amida* prayer. One recites the first three blessings, the final three, and a middle blessing that includes an abbreviated form of the other weekday blessings.


###### Niddah 8b:3
[Niddah 8b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:3)

רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִשּׁוּם אֲבוֹתָיו אוֹמֵר: מִתְפַּלֵּל שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לוֹמַר הַבְדָּלָה בְּ״חוֹנֵן הַדָּעַת״. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: אִיהוּ אָמַר מִשּׁוּם אֲבוֹתָיו, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says in the name of his forefathers: One recites** the complete **eighteen** blessings, **due to** the fact that he is **required to recite *havdala* in** the fourth blessing of the *Amida*: **Who graciously grants knowledge.** *Havdala* cannot be inserted into the abridged version. Evidently, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel does not agree with Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling that one recites *havdala* in the blessing of thanksgiving, one of the final three blessings of the *Amida* prayer. **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says** in explanation: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel **said** this opinion **in the name of his forefathers, but** he **himself does not hold accordingly.**


###### Niddah 8b:4
[Niddah 8b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: וְאַתְּ לָא תִּסְבְּרַאּ דְּמַאן תְּנָא קִטְפָא פֵּירָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הוּא? וְהָתְנַן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַמַּעֲמִיד בִּשְׂרַף עָרְלָה אָסוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Earlier, Rabbi Zeira questioned the claim of Rabbi Pedat, son of Rabbi Eliezer, that the Sage who holds that balsam is considered to be fruit and therefore has the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year is Rabbi Eliezer. **Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: And you? Do you not hold** that the *tanna* **who taught** that **balsam** sap has the status of **fruit is Rabbi Eliezer? As, didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Orla* 1:7) that **Rabbi Eliezer says:** With regard to **one who curdles** cheese **in the sap of *orla*,** the cheese is **prohibited,** as the sap is considered to be fruit of the tree.


###### Niddah 8b:5
[Niddah 8b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:5)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא בְּקִטְפָא דִּגְוָוזָא, אֲבָל בְּקִטְפָא דְּפֵירָא מוֹדוּ לֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּפֵירוּשׁ שֶׁהַמַּעֲמִיד בִּשְׂרַף הֶעָלִין בִּשְׂרַף הָעִיקָּרִין מוּתָּר, בִּשְׂרַף הַפַּגִּין אָסוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פֶּרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **You** may **even say** that the mishna that deals with balsam is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis.** As **the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to** the **sap of the tree, but in** the case of the **sap of the fruit they agree with him. As we learned** in a mishna (*Orla* 1:7) that **Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard explicitly that** in the case of **one who curdles** cheese **in the sap of the leaves** or **the sap of the roots** of an *orla* tree, the cheese is **permitted.** But if it is curdled **in the sap of unripe figs it is prohibited, because** that sap **is** considered to be **fruit.**


###### Niddah 8b:6
[Niddah 8b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:6)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — בְּאִילָן הָעוֹשֶׂה פֵּירוֹת, אֲבָל בְּאִילָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה פֵּירוֹת — מוֹדוּ דִּקְטָפוֹ זֶהוּ פִּרְיוֹ. דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין לַקְּטָף שְׁבִיעִית, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ לַקְּטָף שְׁבִיעִית, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּטָפוֹ זֶהוּ פִּרְיוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: **When the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer,** it is **with regard to a tree that bears fruit. But in** the case of **a tree that does not bear fruit, they agree that its sap is** considered to be **its fruit. As we learned** in a mishna (*Shevi’it* 7:6) that **Rabbi Shimon says:** The sanctity of the **Sabbatical** Year **does not** apply **to sap. And the Rabbis say:** The sanctity of the **Sabbatical** Year **does** apply **to sap, because its sap is its fruit.**


###### Niddah 8b:7
[Niddah 8b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:7)

מַאן חֲכָמִים? לָאו רַבָּנַן דִּפְלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאן חֲכָמִים? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאָמַר: קְטָפוֹ זֶהוּ פִּרְיוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the proof: **Who** are these **Rabbis?** Are they **not the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer?** If so, this demonstrates that they agree in the case of a tree that does not bear fruit. The Gemara rejects this proof: **A certain elder said to** Rabbi Zeira that **this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Who** are **the Rabbis** in this mishna? It is **Rabbi Eliezer, who said** that **its sap is** considered to be **its fruit.**


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

אִי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מַאי אִירְיָא אִילָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה פְּרִי? אֲפִילּוּ אִילָן הָעוֹשֶׂה פְּרִי — קְטָפוֹ זֶהוּ פִּרְיוֹ! לְדִבְרֵיהֶם דְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ: לְדִידִי, אֲפִילּוּ אִילָן הָעוֹשֶׂה פֵּירוֹת נָמֵי — קְטָפוֹ זֶהוּ פִּרְיוֹ. לְדִידְכוּ, אוֹדוֹ לִי מִיהַת בְּאִילָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה פֵּירוֹת דִּקְטָפוֹ זֶהוּ פִּרְיוֹ. וְרַבָּנַן אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If it is** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, why** are they **specifically** discussing the case of **a tree that does not bear fruit? Even** in the case of **a tree that** does **bear fruit,** Rabbi Eliezer maintains that **its sap is** like **its fruit.** The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer **stated** his opinion **to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis** themselves, as follows: **According to my** opinion, **even** with regard to **a tree that bears fruit, its sap** is **also** considered to be **its fruit.** But **according to your** opinion, you should **at least agree with me in** the case of **a tree that does not bear fruit,** that **its sap is** considered to be **its fruit. And the Rabbis said** in response **to** Rabbi Eliezer: **It is no different.** Sap is not considered fruit whether it comes from a fruit-bearing tree or a barren tree.


###### Niddah 8b:9
[Niddah 8b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:9)

אֵיזוֹ הִיא בְּתוּלָה? כֹּל שֶׁלֹּא רָאֲתָה כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נִשֵּׂאת וְרָאֲתָה דָּם מֵחֲמַת נִישּׂוּאִין, יָלְדָה וְרָאֲתָה דָּם מֵחֲמַת לֵידָה — עֲדַיִין אֲנִי קוֹרֵא לָהּ ״בְּתוּלָה״, שֶׁהֲרֵי ״בְּתוּלָה״ שֶׁאָמְרוּ — בְּתוּלַת דָּמִים, וְלֹא בְּתוּלַת בְּתוּלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Who is** the woman characterized as **a virgin** in this context? It is **any** woman **who did not see** the flow of menstrual blood in all her days, even if she was married and experienced bleeding resulting from intercourse consummating her marriage. **The Sages taught:** If she was **married and she saw** a flow of **blood due to her marriage,** i.e., blood resulting from the tearing of her hymen; or if **she gave birth and saw blood due to the birth, I still call her a virgin** in this context. The reason is **that when they said: Virgin** here, they meant a menstrual **blood virgin,** i.e., one who did not yet see a menstrual flow, **and not a hymen-**blood **virgin,** i.e., one who did not experience bleeding from a torn hymen.


###### Niddah 8b:10
[Niddah 8b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:10)

אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: תְּנָא, שָׁלֹשׁ בְּתוּלוֹת הֵן — בְּתוּלַת אָדָם, בְּתוּלַת קַרְקַע, בְּתוּלַת שִׁקְמָה. בְּתוּלַת אָדָם — כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נִבְעֲלָה, נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, אִי נָמֵי לִכְתוּבָּתָהּ מָאתַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that so? But didn’t Rav Kahana say** that a Sage **taught: There are three** types of **virgins: A virgin human, virgin ground, and a virgin sycamore. A virgin human** is a woman for **as long as she has not engaged in intercourse. The relevance** of this designation is that only a virgin is permitted **to** marry **a High Priest** (see Leviticus 21:13–14). **Alternatively,** the relevance is **that her marriage contract is two hundred dinars,** instead of the one hundred dinars in the marriage contract of a non-virgin.


###### Niddah 8b:11
[Niddah 8b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:11)

בְּתוּלַת קַרְקַע — כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נֶעֶבְדָה. נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְנַחַל אֵיתָן, אִי נָמֵי לְמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Virgin ground** is ground for **as long as it has not been worked. The relevance** of this designation is **with regard to** the **rough** dried-up **stream** mentioned in the Torah. When the corpse of a murder victim is found between two towns and the murderer is unknown, the Torah states that a heifer’s neck is broken in a place that was not worked. **Alternatively,** the relevance is **with regard to buying and selling.** If one stipulates that he is buying virgin land, it is defined as land that has never been worked.


###### Niddah 8b:12
[Niddah 8b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:12)

בְּתוּלַת שִׁקְמָה — כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא נִקְצְצָה. נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר, אִי נָמֵי לְמִקְצְצַהּ בִּשְׁבִיעִית, כְּדִתְנַן: אֵין קוֹצְצִין בְּתוּלַת שִׁקְמָה בַּשְּׁבִיעִית מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא עֲבוֹדָה. וְאִם אִיתָא, לִיתְנֵי נָמֵי הָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Finally, **a virgin sycamore** is a sycamore for **as long as it has not been felled,** i.e., cut to promote growth. **The relevance** of this designation is **with regard to buying and selling.** If one stipulates that he is buying virgin sycamore, it is defined as one that has never been felled. **Alternatively,** the relevance is **with regard to** the prohibition against **felling it in the Sabbatical** Year, **as we learned** in a mishna: (*Shevi’it* 4:5): **One may not fell a virgin sycamore in the Sabbatical** Year, **because it is** considered **work,** as this promotes the growth of the tree. The Gemara explains its question: **And if it is so,** that there is a concept of a virgin from menstrual blood, **let** the *tanna* of this *baraita* **also teach this** type of virgin.


###### Niddah 8b:13
[Niddah 8b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:13)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: כִּי קָתָנֵי מִידֵּי דְּלֵית לֵיהּ שֵׁם לְוַוי, אֲבָל מִידֵּי דְּאִית לֵיהּ שֵׁם לְוַוי — לָא קָתָנֵי. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי אָמַר: כִּי קָתָנֵי מִידֵּי דִּתְלֵי בְּמַעֲשֶׂה, מִידֵּי דְּלָא תְּלֵי בְּמַעֲשֶׂה — לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites several answers. **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: When** the Sage **teaches** the list of virgins, he includes only **an item that does not have a modifier, but he does not teach an item that has a modifier.** A virgin human, virgin land, and a virgin sycamore can be referred to without another modifier. Conversely, a virgin with regard to menstrual blood cannot be referred to simply by the unmodified term: Virgin. **Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, says: When** the Sage **teaches** the list of virgins, he includes only **an item that is dependent upon** an outside **action,** e.g., intercourse in the case of a human virgin or felling in the case of a virgin sycamore. But **he does not teach an item that is not dependent upon** an outside **action,** such as a woman’s menstrual flow.


###### Niddah 8b:14
[Niddah 8b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:14)

רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא אָמַר: כִּי קָתָנֵי מִידֵּי דְּלָא הָדַר לִבְרִיָּיתוֹ, מִידֵּי דְּהָדַר לִבְרִיָּיתוֹ לָא קָתָנֵי. רָבִינָא אָמַר: כִּי קָתָנֵי מִידֵּי דְּקָפֵיד עֲלֵיהּ זָבוֹנָא, מִידֵּי דְּלָא קָפֵיד עֲלֵיהּ זָבוֹנָא לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina, son of Rav Ika says: When** the Sage **teaches** the list of virgins, he includes only **an item that will not** later **revert to its** original **state.** But **he does not teach an item** that will later **revert to its** original **state,** such as a woman’s menstrual flow that ceases when she reaches old age. **Ravina says: When** the Sage **teaches** the list of virgins, he includes only **an item about which a buyer is particular,** such as one who purchases a virgin sycamore tree. But **he does not teach an item about which a buyer is not particular,** e.g., a woman’s menstrual blood.


###### Niddah 8b:15
[Niddah 8b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:15)

וְלָא קָפְדִי? וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי חִיָּיא אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַשְּׂאוֹר יָפֶה לָעִיסָּה, כָּךְ דָּמִים יָפִין לָאִשָּׁה. וְתַנְיָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: כׇּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁדָּמֶיהָ מְרוּבִּין — בָּנֶיהָ מְרוּבִּין! אֶלָּא, כִּי קָתָנֵי — מִידֵּי דְּקָפֵיץ עֲלֵיהּ זָבוֹנָא, מִידֵּי דְּלָא קָפֵיץ עֲלֵיהּ זָבוֹנָא — לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is a buyer, i.e., a potential husband, **not particular** about her menstrual blood? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Ḥiyya says: Just as leaven is fortuitous for dough, so** too, **blood is fortuitous for a woman; and it is taught** in another *baraita* **in the name of Rabbi Meir: Any woman whose blood is plentiful, her children are plentiful?** A potential husband would certainly be particular about this factor. The Gemara provides an alternative answer: **Rather, when** the Sage **teaches** the list of virgins, he includes only **an item that buyers are eager** to purchase. But **he does not teach an item that buyers are not eager** to purchase, e.g., a woman without menstrual blood.


###### Niddah 8b:16
[Niddah 8b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:16)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזוֹהִי ״בְּתוּלַת קַרְקַע״? כֹּל שֶׁמַּעֲלָה רְשׁוּשִׁין, וְאֵין עֲפָרָהּ תִּיחוּחַ. נִמְצָא בָּהּ חֶרֶס — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה. צוּנְמָא — הֲרֵי זוֹ ״בְּתוּלַת קַרְקַע״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **What is virgin ground?** It is **any** ground **that raises up hard clumps** of **earth and whose dirt is not loose.** If one **finds** a shard of **earthenware in** the earth, **it is** thereby **known that it was** once **worked** and is not virgin ground. If one finds hard **rock, it is virgin ground.**


###### Niddah 8b:17
[Niddah 8b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:17)

מְעוּבֶּרֶת — מִשֶּׁיִּוָּדַע עוּבָּרָהּ. וְכַמָּה הַכָּרַת הָעוּבָּר? סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לַדָּבָר, זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי כְּמִשְׁלֹשׁ חֳדָשִׁים וְגוֹמֵר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: The time of **a pregnant woman** is sufficient **from** the point in her pregnancy when the existence of **her fetus is known** to all who see her. The Gemara asks: **And how much** time must pass for **the fetus to be known? Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Three months. And although there is no** explicit **proof for the matter,** that a fetus is discernable after three months of pregnancy, there is **an allusion to the matter, as it is stated: “And it came to pass about three months** after, that it was told to Judah, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot” (Genesis 38:24).


###### Niddah 8b:18
[Niddah 8b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:18)

זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר? קְרָא כְּתִיב, וּרְאָיָה גְּדוֹלָה הִיא! מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא דְּיָלְדָה לְתִשְׁעָה, וְאִיכָּא דְּיָלְדָה לְשִׁבְעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why does Rabbi Meir call this a mere **allusion to the matter?** An explicit **verse is written, and that is a significant proof.** The Gemara answers: It is only an allusion **because there are** some women **who give birth after nine** months **and there are** others **who give birth after seven** months. Although the verse indicates that a fetus is known to all after three months, it is possible that this applies only to a nine-month pregnancy. Since in the case of a nine-month pregnancy the fetus is recognizable after a third of the full term, with regard to a seven-month pregnancy, the fetus would likewise be noticeable after a third of the full pregnancy, i.e., at two and one-third months. Therefore, Rabbi Meir teaches that in all cases the fetus is known only after three months.


###### Niddah 8b:19
[Niddah 8b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:19)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּחֶזְקַת מְעוּבֶּרֶת, וְרָאֲתָה דָּם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִפִּילָה רוּחַ אוֹ כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁל קְיָימָא — הֲרֵי הִיא בְּחֶזְקָתָהּ, וְדַיָּה שְׁעָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to a woman who **had a presumptive status that** she was **pregnant and she saw blood, and afterward** she **miscarried air, or anything that is not a viable** fetus, **she** retains **her presumptive status, and** therefore **her time is sufficient** from that flow of blood, i.e., it renders her impure only from then on, not retroactively, as even a non-viable fetus gives her full pregnancy status.


###### Niddah 8b:20
[Niddah 8b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:20)

וְאַף עַל גַּב שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לַדָּבָר, זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הָרִינוּ חַלְנוּ כְּמוֹ יָלַדְנוּ רוּחַ״. מַאי זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר? הֲרֵי רְאָיָה גְּדוֹלָה הִיא! כִּי כְּתִיב הַאי קְרָא, בִּזְכָרִים כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And even though there is no** explicit **proof for** this **matter,** that even a pregnancy that ends in a miscarriage is like a full-fledged pregnancy, there is **an allusion to the matter, as it is stated: “We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind”** (Isaiah 26:18). This verse indicates that even one who miscarries wind is considered as having been with child. The Gemara asks: **What** is the reason that this is called a mere **allusion to the matter?** This explicit verse **is a significant proof.** The Gemara answers: **When that verse was written,** it was **written with regard to males** as bearing children. The allusion to child-bearing in the verse is symbolic, so halakhic inferences may not be drawn from it.


###### Niddah 8b:21
[Niddah 8b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/8b:21)

וּרְמִינְהִי: קִשְּׁתָה שְׁנַיִם, וְלַשְּׁלִישִׁי הִפִּילָה רוּחַ אוֹ כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁל קְיָימָא — הֲרֵי זוֹ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ לֵידָה מְעַלַּיְיתָא הִיא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a *baraita*: If a woman experienced **labor** pain for **two** days, during which she saw a discharge of blood, **and on the third** day **she miscarried air or anything that is not a viable** fetus, **that** woman **gives birth as a *zava*,** and the blood is treated as blood of a *zava* in all regards. The Gemara explains the contradiction: **And if you say** that miscarrying a non-viable fetus **is** considered **a proper birth,** this is problematic,