MISHNAH: If a woman has a miscarriage in the form of a lump¹; if this was accompanied by blood she is impure², otherwise she is pure. Rebbi Jehudah says, in any case she is impure.

footnotes: ¹ Not anything recognizable as a human fetus. ² Impure as menstruating, not as giving birth.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman has a miscarriage in the form of a lump,” etc. The Sages say, the uterus grows the lump³. Rebbi Jehudah says, blood congealed and was formed into a lump⁴.

footnotes: ³ The miscarriage is neither a birth nor menstruation; it cannot be classified with anything implying impurity. ⁴ Since any blood seeping from the walls of the uterus is a source of impurity, the fact of the discharge is proof of impurity.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah declared impure only in the color of the four kinds of blood⁵. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba, in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Nehorai: Practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar heard that and said, I do not accept this. Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he did not say that practice follows Rebbi Jehudah but he saw that the rabbis are used to follow Rebbi Jehudah⁶. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai: One tears it open. If one finds blood collected there, she is impure, otherwise she is pure⁷. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated, disagreeing with Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: “Blood would be her flow from her genitals,⁸ 15:19.” not what is in the amnion nor in a lump⁹ 4(4) is rejected by R. Ze‘ira in the Babli, 21b, and by R. Simeon (ben Ioḥai) in Sifra..

footnotes: ⁵ In the Babli, 21a, R. Joḥanan is reported to hold that even the Sages agree that a lump in the color of the four types recognized as impure blood (taking red and black together) makes the woman impure; for him the disagreement between the Sages and R. Jehudah refers only to lumps that do not look like blood. R. Joḥanan’s opinion as quoted here is ascribed in the Babli to Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel. ⁶ There is no principle involved that practice should follow R. Jehudah; he only stated what he recognized as usual among Babylonian rabbis. ⁷ In the Babli, 21b, this is a tannaїtic statement of Symmachos attributed to R. Meïr. ⁸ . Lev. ⁹ In the Babli, 21b, this is an amoraic statement attributed to R. Ze‘ira. The explanation of the verse in Sifra Meṣora‘ Parašah

MISHNAH: If a woman miscarried the form of a membrane, a hair, dust, or red mosquitoes, it should be soaked in water; if it dissolves she is impure¹⁰. If a woman miscarried the form of fishes, grasshoppers, abominable or crawling things; if this was accompanied by bleeding she is impure¹¹, otherwise pure. If a woman miscarried the form of a domestic or wild animal, or bird, whether pure or impure, if it is a male she should observe the days of a male birth¹², if a female of female births¹³, if it cannot be determined then of both males and females¹⁴, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, anything which has no human form is no child¹⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁰ Everybody agrees that these are congealed masses of blood if they dissolve in water; there is menstrual blood but no birth. ¹¹ Following the rules of menstruation. ¹² Seven days of impurity followed by 33 days of purity. ¹³ 14 days of impurity followed by 66 days of purity. ¹⁴ 14 days of impurity as of a female followed by 26 days of purity (the 33 of a male minus 7 days assigned to the impurity of a female birth). ¹⁵ If there was bleeding, she is impure as menstruating, otherwise she remains pure.

HALAKHAH: If a woman miscarried in the form of a lump,¹⁶” etc. Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁷ in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: She has to soak it in lukewarm water¹⁸. But did we not state: “If a woman miscarried in the form of fishes, grasshoppers, abominable or crawling things; if this was accompanied by bleeding she is impure, otherwise pure.” Can she not put it in lukewarm water¹⁹? The second learns from the first and the first learns from the second. The second learns from the first, that if they dissolved she is impure, if not, she is pure²⁰. The first leans from the second, if this was accompanied by bleeding she is impure, otherwise pure, and she has to soak it in lukewarm water.

footnotes: ¹⁶ Obviously a misquote, from Mishnah 1. ¹⁷ This must be R. Ḥinena, the student, not R. Ḥanina, the teacher of R. Simeon ben Laqish. ¹⁸ Quoted also in the Babli, 22b. ¹⁹ Since the Sages at the end state that the event cannot be considered a birth. ²⁰ There is an alternative way of checking: if the discharge was without blood, the woman would nevertheless be impure if the discharged material dissolved in water.

There, we have stated²²: How long does it have to be soaked? In lukewarm water, 24 hours.”²³ “Jehudah ben Neqosa says, if has to be lukewarm for 24 hours”²⁴. How does one proceed? One puts it into hot ashes or adds any amount of hot water.

footnotes: ²² Mishnah 7:1, speaking of body fluids other than blood, which transmit impurity only if moist, not when dry. There it is stated that dry matter becomes a carrier of prior impurity if it becomes moist after 24 hours of soaking in lukewarm water. ²³ By analogy, that is the time of soaking in lukewarm water accepted here and in the Babli, 22b. ²⁴ Before being used; Tosephta 6:11.

If a woman miscarried dry blood, Rebbi Eleazar says, she is impure; Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, she is pure²⁵. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: “Menstrual blood and flesh from a corpse make impure moist and dry.²⁶” He explains it that it was moist and then became dry²⁷. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “If a woman had a miscarriage in the form of a lump²⁸, a hair, dust, or red mosquitoes, it should be soaked in water; if it dissolves she is impure.” He explains it, because of a creature²⁹. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even there you can object about dust. Is dust a creature? Rebbi Abba said, You even may mention dust. The dust from a pregnant woman exists as a creature³⁰. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina³¹: “It happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red membranes³². The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wound³³. Also it happened that a woman miscarried with a kind of red hairs. The case came before the Sages who sent and called the doctors who told them, she has an internal wart³³.” Only because of a wart and a wound. Therefore, if there is no wart or no wound, it does not apply³⁴. This disagrees with him and [his opinion] cannot be upheld.

footnotes: ²⁵ In the Babli, 22a/b, this is formulated as a discussion between R. Yose ben Ḥanina and R. Eleazar, with only R. Eleazar’s position fully articulated. ²⁶ Mishnah 7:1. Blood contrasts with all other body fluids which are carriers of impurity only when moist. ²⁷ Blood keeps its impurity once it has acquired it. This implies nothing for blood which never was moist when it left the body. The same answer is given in the Babli, 22a. ²⁸ Since one speaks of a lump of dry blood, this probably is an intentional misquote of the Mishnah, instead of “membrane”. ²⁹ The reference is to the part of the Mishnah which was not quoted: “If it does not dissolve, she is pure.” Then something had grown in her body, but since it is not human, it cannot make her impure, following the Sages at the end of the Mishnah. (Rashi on 22b). ³⁰ The Mishnah does not say “dust” but “in the form of dust”; this can represent microscopic creatures. ³¹ In a different formulation this is Tosephta 4:3–4, quoted in the Babli, 22b. ³² Rashi explains as scar tissue. ³³ There cannot be any question of menstrual blood; the woman is pure. ³³ There cannot be any question of menstrual blood; the woman is pure. ³⁴ In the absence of a sufficient medical reason, the woman has to be declared impure.

³⁵ Rebbi Joḥanan said, this birth is like all other births mentioned in the Torah. Just as all other births mentioned in the Torah [are counted] from the appearance of either head or most of the body³⁶7:7: “If a woman has difficulty giving birth, one dissects the fetus in her womb and removes it in pieces because her life has precedence over his life. If the greater part of his body came out one may not touch him since one does not choose between lives.” Commentary of Maimonides: This is obvious and true and does not need a commentary. Similarly, the impurity of birth starts with the appearance of the forehead (head first) or most of the body (feet first)., this also [is counted] from the appearance of either head or most of the body. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this birth is different from all other births mentioned in the Torah. All other births mentioned in the Torah [are counted] from the appearance of either head or most of the body, this one once the face is recognized³⁷. What is the difference between them? If he came cut or stunted. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, until the appearance of either head or most of the body. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, until the face is recognized³⁸.

footnotes: ³⁵ Here starts the discussion of the positions of R. Meïr, who declares that a still-birth of an animal-shaped body is counted as a human birth, and the Sages who deny this. In a later paragraph, R. Joḥanan defines the human or animal character of a chimera or hybrid by its human or animal face. ³⁶ Mishnah Ahilot ³⁷ Since the face of a chimera defines its human charater, there can be no recognition of human birth before that character is recognizable. ³⁸ There is no human birth if there is no face even if there is a forehead and a body.

“If it cannot be determined then she shall observe for both male and female, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, anything which has no human form is no child.” Everywhere we stated “she shall observe for male and female, fourteen [days] impure and 26 pure¹⁴; one puts upon her the restrictions of the male and of the female. That means, for her house³⁹. But for pure food, she shall observe for a female [birth].

footnotes: ¹⁴ 14 days of impurity as of a female followed by 26 days of purity (the 33 of a male minus 7 days assigned to the impurity of a female birth). ³⁹ The 26 days of purity are applicable only to her relations with her husband. For preparations of pure food, she can consider the full 66 days of a female birth as pure.

Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, Rebbi Meïr’s reason is that “shaping” is written for them as for humans⁴⁰. “The Eternal God shaped man as dust from the earth.⁴¹ 2:7.” Rebbi Immi asked, because “shaping” is written for them as for animals, “the Eternal God shaped from the earth all animals of the field and the birds of the sky⁴² 2:19. The masoretic text is slightly different from the text quoted.”? But is it not written “for behold the Shaper of mountains and Creator of wind⁴³ 4: 13. The same question is asked in the Babli, 23a.”? Then, if she has a miscarriage in the shape of a mountain, she should be impure because of birth! There is a difference, for shaping is not written for them in the Creation story. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they look forward as humans do. Abba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because they walk forward as humans do⁴⁴. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected: Did we not state, “if his eyeball is round like that of a human,” is that not a defect⁴⁵ 6:8. A firstling whose eyes look human is not acceptable as sacrifice.? Rebbi Yose said, did we not state, look forward; did we not state, walk⁴⁶? What about it⁴⁷? Human eyeballs are round, animal eyeballs are elongated. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, human eyes have more white than black, animal eyes have more black than white.

footnotes: ⁴⁰ In the Babli, 22b, this is attributed to Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel. ⁴¹ Gen. ⁴² Gen. ⁴³ Am. ⁴⁴ In the Babli, 23a, Rabba bar bar Ḥana in the name of R. Joḥanan gives the explanation attributed here to R. Yasa. ⁴⁵ Mishnah Bekhorot ⁴⁶ R. Joḥanan only spoke about functions, not about looks. (But human eyes are forward looking as eyes of predators; the eyes of kosher animals are sideways looking eyes of prey. In the Babli, 23a, Abbai restricts the rule of R. Meïr about birds to owls who have forward-looking quasi-human eyes.) ⁴⁷ Which features make animal eyes a bodily defect by being like human eyes?

Rebbi Ḥaggai said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A colleague of the rabbis objected to the position of Rebbi Meïr: If she miscarried the likeness of a raven⁴⁸ of the root נפל means “to miscarry, to abort (actively or passively)”. נֶפֶל is the stillborn. The questioner here presumes that if a woman can give birth to a stillborn chimera, she can also give birth to a live chimera. Then R. Meïr must hold that there are animals which are counted as human, with paradoxical consequences. and he stands on the top of a tree, can one say to him, come and give ḥalîṣah or marry in levirate? Rebbi Mana told him, instead of objecting to Rebbi Meïr, object to the rabbis⁴⁹! Since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan⁵⁰, if his entire body is human and only his face is animal, he is not counted as a child. If his entire body is animal and only his face is human, he is counted as a child. If his entire body is human and only his face is animal, when he is standing reading the Torah one may tell him, come to be slaughtered⁵¹. If his entire body is animal and only his face is human, when he is ploughing the field⁵² one may tell him, come and give ḥalîṣah or marry in levirate!

footnotes: ⁴⁸ The hiph‘il ⁴⁹ Since the Sages disagree with R. Meïr only in the definition of what makes a woman impure as consequence of a birth, if R. Meïr accepts living chimeras so do the Sages. The implied conclusion is that the language of the Mishnah, the term “miscarried”, was chosen judiciously to teach that chimeras by their nature are stillborn. The cases constructed here cannot happen; a conclusion stated explicitly in the Babli, 23a. ⁵⁰ In the Babli, 23b, a statement of Rav Jeremiah bar Abba in the name of Rav. ⁵¹ If his face is that of a kosher animal. ⁵² An ox harnessed to the plough.

And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. The following are the criteria: The forehead, the eyebrows, the eye, the ear, the mandible, the nose, the beard, and the dimple. And Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not all the criteria together but only one criterion. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The words of Rebbi: Only if the entire face has human traits; but the words of the rabbis: Even one of the criteria⁵³ states that one criterion is sufficient except for the ear but all Amoraim hold that all criteria together have to be fulfilled for a human birth.; and the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: Even its fingernails. Rebbi Phineas asked: Are not the statements of Rebbi Simeon bar Ioḥai inverted? There⁵⁴ 1:9: “R. Simeon says, why does the verse say ‘camel, camel’ two times (Lev. 11:4, Deut. 14:7) to add a camel born from a cow as if it were born from a she-camel but if its head and most of its body are similar to its mother it is permitted as food. But the Sages say that what comes from an impure animal is impure, from a pure animal is pure, since no pure animal can be impregnated from an impure animal and vice versa, nor cattle from sheep and goats and vice versa, nor a human from an animal and vice versa.” Here R. Simeon requires that most of the animal be similar to its mother to accept it as animal birth., he says, “only if its head and most of its body are like its mother,” and here, he says so? Here about humans, there about animals⁵⁵ 4(6), the fact that a camel is not kosher is brought as proof that one criterion for a kosher animal is not sufficient; all criteria must be satisfied. Since that statement is obvious from the verses, one may see in it a veiled attack on the position that one criterion is sufficient to determine a human birth.. Rebbi Abba said, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya went South. Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its entire body is human and only its face is animal? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, it is no birth. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Zeugos went out, Rebbi Ḥama the father of Rebbi Hoshaia and bar Qappara asked him: What is the rule if its eyes are shapeless⁵⁶? He returned and asked Rebbi, who told him, go and write to them, there is no child. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi follows his own opinion since Rebbi says, only if the entire face has human traits. What if its face was crushed⁵⁷? Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish differ. Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is no child; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish says, it is a child. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, not that Rebbi Joḥanan said it is no child in every respect but it is no child to provide the mother with days of purity; it is a child to require the mother to observe the days of birth⁵⁸. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If its hip is unformed⁵⁹, it is not a child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Joshua: If the navel is unformed⁶⁰, it is no child. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zakkai: If its holes are unformed⁶¹, it is no child. Rebbi Ze‘ira⁶² in the name of Gidul: If its skull is unformed there is no child.

footnotes: ⁵³ In the Babli, 23b, one baraita ⁵⁴ Tosephta Bekhorot ⁵⁵ In Sifra Šemini Pereq ⁵⁶ According to Rashi in the Babli, 24a, the skull has no sign of indenture where the eyes should be. In the Babli, R. Hiyya’s sons were asked and gave the wrong answer. ⁵⁷ The face is barely recognizable (Rashi in Babli 24a). ⁵⁸ 14 days of impurity for a female birth (Rashi in Babli 24a). ⁵⁹ A stillbirth whose legs are not movable. This is a birth defect which is not mentioned in the Babli. ⁶⁰ Since the navel is the point where the fetus is connected to the placenta, an absence of an indication of the place of the navel is proof that there is no human fetus. The Babli agrees, 24a. ⁶¹ Neither bladder nor intestines have an outlet. The Babli agrees, 24a. ⁶² In the Babli, 24a: R. Joḥanan.

MISHNAH: If a woman miscarried an amnion full of water, or blood, or flakes⁶³, she does not have to consider this as a child. But if it showed tissue⁶⁴ she has to observe for male and female birth¹⁴.

footnotes: ⁶³ It looks like flakes of flesh but no body is formed. ⁶⁴ If inside the amnion a form is seen but it is not recognizable what it is. ¹⁴ 14 days of impurity as of a female followed by 26 days of purity (the 33 of a male minus 7 days assigned to the impurity of a female birth).

HALAKHAH: “If a woman miscarried an amnion full of water,” etc. It was stated⁶⁵ is quoted in the Babli, 25a.: Full of water⁶⁶ holds that there is no amniotic fluid without a fetus., she is impure for a birth; full of blood, she is impure as menstruating; full of flesh⁶⁷, she is impure as menstruating. But did we not state: “If a woman miscarried an amnion full of water, or blood, or flakes, she does not have to consider this as a child”? Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The Mishnah if [the contents are] clear; the baraita if [the contents are] turbid. Rebbi Simon in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi: Even if all was clear, since only humans have an amnion⁶⁸, (close to Tosephta 4:12): “If a woman gives birth to an amnion which does not contain tissue, R. Joshua says it is a birth but the Sages say it is no birth”. R. Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of R. Oshaia (= Hoshaia): They quarrel if it is turbid, but if the contents are clear everybody says that it is no birth, but R. Joshua ben Levi said, their quarrel is if the contents are clear. In the end, Samuel declares in the Babli that an amnion is not a sign of birth only if it is transparent. This might agree with the Yerushalmi.! That is what is written⁶⁹ 38:9. The verse, which describes the creation of the world, is interpreted as describing human birth.: “When I gave clouds as his garment and fog as his diapers.” “His garment” is the amnion, “and fog his diapers” that is the placenta.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ A similar but different baraita ⁶⁶ This baraita ⁶⁷ Since there is no shape, there can be no birth; pieces of flesh contain blood and make the woman impure. ⁶⁸ In the Babli, 25a, these statements refer to another baraita ⁶⁹ Job

⁷⁰ 27b, s. v. מת has a different text: שְׁפִיר שֶׁנִּתְבַּלְבְּלָה צוּרָתוֹ מָהוּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. טָמֵא. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. טָהוֹר. איתיבי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מֵרִבִּי יִצחָק מִגְּדָּלָאה וּמְשַׁנֵּה. דְּבַר תּוֹרָה אֲפִילוּ שִׁלְדּוֹ קַייֶמֶת טְהוֹרָה. מִפְּנֵי מָה אָֽמְרוּ. טָמֵא. מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹדוֹ. “If an amnion’s shape was mixed up, what is the rule? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is impure; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is pure. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected before Rebbi Joḥanan from the statement of R. Isaac from Magdala. He said to him, biblical law even requires that he be pure even with his spine intact; why did they say, he is impure? That he should be treated with honor. a A Babylonian expression. b A statement in the Babli, 27b: “The corpse of a person who was burned is impure if the spine exists.” The quote of Tosaphot from “Yerushalmi” is probably from the Ashkenazic “Book Yerushalmi”, containing Yerushalmi rules adapted to the Babli. If an amnion’s shape was spoiled, what is the rule? Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is a child; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is not a child. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: What is the difference between this and a rotting corpse without a spine⁷¹? He said to him, in the latter case it would have been correct that he should be pure even with his spine intact; why did they say, he is impure? That he should be treated with honor⁷². But in our case it is a birth.

footnotes: ⁷⁰ Tosaphot Niddah ⁷¹ If the skeletal remains of a corpse are found and the spine is not complete, one does not have to worry that the earth below and around it is really decomposed flesh and should be impure. If the remains of the amnion are not recognizable as such, there seems to be no reason to treat it as impure. ⁷² The impurity of the dead is a sign that the corpse needs burial.

What is the amnion containing tissue which they referred to? Any which initially looks like a rāšôn⁷³ 65a, rāšôn is identified as biblicalסָלְעָם , a locust (Lev. 11:22). In the Tosephta (4:10)רושם ; in the Babli Niddah 25a editio princeps, ראשו, reading of ‘Arukhרשון .. ⁷⁴ One does not check it in water, for water is a solvent and destroys it, but only in oil which is neutral and clears up; also one checks only in sunlight.

footnotes: ⁷³ In the Babli, Ḥulin ⁷⁴ Tosephta 4:11 (there מזכזך for מזגזג); Babli 25a/b (מצחצח).

⁷⁵ 45b, Yoma 85a.It was stated: “Abba Shaul said, a human is created from his navel; from there is spreads its roots in all directions. It was stated: One sees his two eyes like two fly-blows, his two nose holes like two fly-blows, his mouth opened like a barley grain. One sees his two hands like two fly-blows, his navel like a fly-blow, his genital like a fly blow and if she is female, her genital spanned like a barley grain.” It was stated: Rebbi Jonathan says, one sees his two arms like two threads of crimson wool and his other limbs like compressed unformed material; he has not yet developed hands and feet. On that it is explained in the Bible⁷⁶: ⁷⁷ 139:16. That Psalm, while ascribed to David, is generally interpreted to describe the experiences of Adam. Cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah (Northvale 1995), p. 220.“My unformed body was seen by Your eyes, in Your ledger they are all written down, the days bundled before one of them was.”

footnotes: ⁷⁵ Tosephta 4:10; Babli 25a; also Soṭah ⁷⁶ קַבָּלָה “that which was received” denotes all parts of the Hebrew Bible other than the Torah. ⁷⁷ Ps.

Rav Jehudah asked Samuel: Since I am learned, can I judge the signs of an amnion? He said to him, your head’s head can be scalded by boiling water, you should not be scalded even by lukewarm water⁷⁸. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, we do not rely on women who say, its completion⁷⁹ reads שבלוליה “its snail” for שכלוליה “its completion”. would have been male, its completion would have been female. Rebbi Jacon bar Zavdi, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A woman is trustworthy if she said, I gave birth or I did not give birth. But she is not trustworthy if she says, it was male or it was female⁸⁰ #340 (vol. 1, col. 90b), where the author, R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna, notes that he does not understand why women should not be trusted in the matter of impurities and purity. But it seems that the students of R. Joḥanan only confirm the interpretation given to R. Joḥanan’s position earlier, Note 58..

footnotes: ⁷⁸ I, the medical authority and your teacher, can investigate the most difficult situations; you, a rabbi, should not give an opinion even in obvious cases. In the Babli, 25b, Samuel is reported to have told Rav Jehudah not to decide in cases in which there was a fetus with no hair on his skull. ⁷⁹ Editio princeps ⁸⁰ This is quoted in Or Zarua‘

MISHNAH: If a woman miscarried a sole⁸¹)”. The object of the miscarriage was a flat piece, without recognizable face or limbs. or a placenta⁸², she should observe for male and female birth¹⁴. A placenta in the house makes the house impure; not that the placenta is a child but there is no placenta without a child⁸³. Rebbi Simeon says, the child was dissolved before it came out⁸⁴.

footnotes: ⁸¹ Greek σάνδαλον “sandal; a flat fish (solea ⁸² Without a body attached to it. ¹⁴ 14 days of impurity as of a female followed by 26 days of purity (the 33 of a male minus 7 days assigned to the impurity of a female birth). ⁸³ If there was a placenta, one may assume that it was accompanied by a small dead human embryo. Therefore, the house transmits the impurity of the dead as long as any tissue from this birth is in the house. ⁸⁴ While no placenta can be formed without a pregnancy, if no child was found at the moment of birth there is none and the house is pure. A stillbirth is not a source of impurity as long as it remains in the womb of a woman.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman miscarried a sole or a placenta,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: There only is a sole because it was weighed down by a living [fetus]; it comes out not with a living but with a dead [child]⁸⁵. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected: did we not state, “if a woman miscarried a sole or a placenta, she should observe for male and female birth”? That means, it is a child⁸⁶1:3 that a woman having a miscarriage of a sole or a placenta is obligated to bring a sacrifice (Lev. 12:6–8) which is eaten by the Temple priests. This implies that this miscarriage is a complete birth in the sense of the biblical text. But Rav Jehudah seems to imply that these miscarriages are always accompanied by a regular stillbirth, which requires a sacrifice by the simple wording of the text. It seems that the Mishnah in Keritut is superfluous. The Mishnah here can be justified as informing on the periods of impurity and purity which are changed from those induced by the stillbirth.! Rebbi Huna said, I explained it before Rebbi Jeremiah. Explain it if the child was born through the wall of the womb⁸⁷ 5:1). If one child is delivered by caesarean section and the other through the vagina, only the second is counted as birth for impurity and sacrifice. and the sole from the womb. The child within fulfilling, the sole after fulfilling⁸⁸ 12:6: “After fulfilling the days of her purity for son or daughter, she has to bring ..” Immediately after the end of her period of purity, the obligation of a sacrifice starts. Any additional birth occuring between the first and the end of the period of purity does not create a new obligation of sacrifice, but any birth occuring when the mother already is obligated for a sacrifice creates a separate obligation after the observation of its periods of impurity and purity (Mishnah Keritut 2:4).. The child before she converted, the sole after she converted⁸⁹. But even you may say, both were born from the womb, both were born after she converted⁹⁰. Explain that the child was born first and she designated a sacrifice for it. Before she could bring the sacrifice, the sole came out⁹¹ and the first sacrifice was pushed away⁹². It turns out that she brings the sacrifice for the sole.

footnotes: ⁸⁵ If one of a pair of twins kills its sibling in the womb, he himself will die in the womb. ⁸⁶ It is stated in Mishnah Keritut ⁸⁷ A delivery by caesarean section is not a birth; the mother is not impure for the birth and not required to bring a sacrifice (Mishnah Niddah ⁸⁸ “Fulfilling” refers to Lev. ⁸⁹ This is a different case. As a Gentile, the woman is not obligated for anything. If she converts before the miscarriage of the sole, she has to observe the rules of birth for the sole alone, even if it was accompanied by the birth of a recognizable child. ⁹⁰ The constructions of R. Huna are unnecessary. ⁹¹ Within the days of “fulfilling”, but after she had designated the sacrifice. She now has to bring one sacrifice dedicated to two births. ⁹² A purification sacrifice which cannot be used for its original purpose cannot be used for any other purpose. Therefore, a sacrifice dedicated to one birth cannot be used for two; the second miscarriage obligates the mother to dedicate a new sacrifice.

“What is the sole which they mentioned? Anything which looks like the sole, a sea fish. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, anything which looks like an ox tongue. Our teachers voted about this to say, only if it exhibits human traits.”⁹³ Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court⁹⁴ 1:1 (3d 1.20), Giṭṭin 7:3 (48d 1.17), Avodah zarah 2:8 (41d 1.48); obliquely mentioned in the Babli Giṭṭin72b, 76b; Ketubot 2b, Avodah zarah37a.. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers”, about bills of divorce, oil, and a sole. About a sole, as we just said. About oil, as we have stated: “Rebbi and his court permitted oil¹ 2:9. The Mishnah has a list of foods that cannot be taken from Gentiles without kosher supervision since one cannot be sure that no forbidden ingredients were used but which are not forbidden for usufruct. A first group contains milk, bread, and olive oil, with a note that “our teachers permitted olive oil” [to be used without supervision.] In the Babli, this permission is attributed to Rebbi, not his grandson R. Jehudah the Prince. (The chronology of the House of Hillel in the third cent. and the attribution of decrees between Rabbis Jehudah I, II, and III is in dispute.).” About bills of divorce, as we have stated there⁹⁵ 7:3. From here on there exists a Geniza text; its readings are given by ג.: “This is your bill of divorce if I die, this is your bill of divorce if [I die from this] sickness, this is your bill of divorce after my death; he did not say anything⁹⁶.” But then he cannot live with her any longer without invalidating the divorce..” But our teachers said, this is a bill of divorce⁹⁷ 72b, reports the same but in 76b refers the decision to Mishnah 7:9: “If he says, this is your bill of divorce if I do not return within 12 months; if he dies in the meantime, the bill of divorce is void.” In this case also, he did not specify from today. The Babli explains that in both cases they follow R. Yose who holds that “the date of a document is proof of its validity;” a bill of divorce executed before the husband’s death is valid. The same explanation is tentatively accepted in the Yerushalmi, Giṭṭin 7:3 (48d l. 25).. Who are “our teachers”? Rebbi Jehudah the Prince and his court. They should have called him “permissive court” since any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.⁹⁸ 8:4, the oldest Mishnah on record.” Rebbi Yudan said, his court disagreed with him about the bills of divorce. Rebbi Yannai shouted, you purified the women giving birth⁹⁹! Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: This is part of the testimony of Rebbi Onias from Hauran¹⁰⁰ 1:7, Note 53.; as from Rebbi Ze‘ira: If this is part of the testimony of Rebbi Onias from Hauran then it was Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁰¹ who shouted, you purified the women giving birth!

footnotes: ⁹³ Tosephta 4:6, Babli 25b. The last sentence reads in the Babli: Our teachers testified that a sole [to be the source of birth impurity] needs the shape of a face. ⁹⁴ Šabbat ¹ Mishnah Avodah zarah ⁹⁵ Mishnah Giṭṭin ⁹⁶ After his death, no person can perform any legal action. Therefore, a bill of divorce which shall be valid only after the husband’s death is invalid. If the husband is sick or goes on a trip overseas, and he wants to spare his wife (or prevent her from contracting) a levirate marriage to his brother, he can give her a bill of divorce stating “if I die then this shall be your bill of divorce valid from today ⁹⁷ The Babli, Giṭṭin ⁹⁸ Mishnah Idiut ⁹⁹ By freeing all miscarriages without a recognizable fetus from the rules of birth impurity. ¹⁰⁰ One should read חוֹנְייָה מִבֵּית חַװְרָן, cf. Sevi‘it ¹⁰¹ Rebbi Onias’s teacher.

¹⁰²“What is the placenta they mentioned? Anything looking like a thread of woof and its head is blown up like a lupine. Rabban Gamliel says, anything looking like chicken intestines and its head is blown up like a crop and it is hollow like a trumpet. No placenta is shorter than a hand-breadth.”

footnotes: ¹⁰² The Babylonian version has slightly different attributions: Babli 26a, Tosephta 4:9.

¹⁰³ 1:4 (60b 1. 43), ק. A different version is in the Babli, Baba qama 11a. Rav Jehudah sent and asked Rebbi Eleazar: If a placenta came out partially today and partially tomorrow? He told him, for pure blood she counts from the first day, for impure blood she counts from the second day¹⁰⁴. Rebbi Mattaniah said, this refers to the case that there was no child born with it. But if a child was born with it, then both for pure and for impure blood she counts only from the moment the child was born.

footnotes: ¹⁰³ The same text is in Qiddušin ¹⁰⁴ She has only 25 days of purity since the 14th day of her impurity is the 15th day of her count for purity. In the version of the Babli, during the first day she would make pure food impure but the count, including 26 days of purity, starts only on the second day.

Rebbi Yose ben Shaul asked before Rebbi: Can one refer a placenta to something which is not a child¹⁰⁵? He said to him, one does not refer a placenta to anything which is not a child. If it came out attached to it, what then? He said to him, one does not discuss anything impossible. Rebbi Ḥanin stated from Samuel¹⁰⁶: One does not refer a placenta to something which is not a child, if [nevertheless] it came out attached to something else, one refers to it. Samuel asked the students of Rav: Can one refer a placenta to stillbirths? They said to him, one refers a placenta to a child and one [does not] refer(s) a placenta to stillbirths¹⁰⁷ of a stillbirth.. Samuel praised them because they follow the argument [of their teacher]¹⁰⁸. Rebbi Ḥanin stated from Samuel: One refers a placenta to a child but one does not refer a placenta to stillbirths since it does not separate until it [was completed]¹⁰⁹. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of the rabbis: What you say, that one refers a placenta to a child, is because a pregnant woman does not become pregnant¹¹⁰. Why does one not refer it to stillbirth, can a woman not have a stillbirth followed by a stillbirth¹¹¹? I say that she was pregnant with twins when the placenta of one amnion was crushed by the amnion of the other placenta. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: One refers a placenta to a child for up to three days¹¹², and no child remains after another child for three days. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, he who said this also said the other, but they disagree with one another¹¹³! Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah explained it following Rav: You say that one refers a placenta to a child for up to three days if the child was born first, and you say that no child remains after another child for three days if the sole appeared first. Rebbi Mana said, is that correct? The active ones come out first¹¹⁴. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if [the womb] opened for the large, it opened for the small; if it opened for the small it did not open for the large¹¹⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ If a woman is delivered of a placenta without a baby, does one have to assume that this represents a stillbirth or could she have developed a tumor in the form of a placenta which then was expelled from her body? ¹⁰⁶ The reading of the Geniza: R. Ḥanina was the student of R. Samuel bar Isaac. ¹⁰⁷ After the birth of a live child, the placenta will be expelled separately; a placenta not followed by birth cannot be considered placenta praevia ¹⁰⁸ Translation of the Genizah text. Leiden ms: “The argument of Rebbi Abun” (who lived several generations after Rav and Samuel and is never mentioned in this connection.) ¹⁰⁹ He holds that the stillbirth of an incomplete gestation is always expelled together with its placenta. ¹¹⁰ While pregnant (with one or several simultaneous children), a woman will not start a later pregnancy. This is asserted as certain truth in the Babli, 27a. ¹¹¹ Can a woman not be pregnant with twins and lose them at different times? ¹¹² After the birth of a child it can take up to three days before the placenta is expelled; the count of impurity starts with the birth of the child. If the placenta is expelled later that three days one considers this as a later stillbirth and starts the count of impurity for an indeterminate stillbirth from the later date. The same opinion in the Babli, 26b. ¹¹³ If twins can be born three days apart, then the placenta could be expelled after 6 days, not three as asserted in the first part of the statement. ¹¹⁴ He denies that in the case of twins a live birth can happen three days after a stillbirth. ¹¹⁵ A fetus whose development was arrested cannot stay in the womb after the birth of its live twin; the live child can stay in the womb after the dead was expelled. This sentence is missing in the Genizah text.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, this¹¹⁶ follows Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, the child was dissolved before it came out. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon agrees that he causes his mother the days of birth¹¹⁷. Then the house should be impure¹¹⁸ 19).? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it if it came out partially dissolved¹¹⁹. Rebbi Simeon said to the Sages: Do you not agree with me that if the basin is carried from the inner to an outer room it is pure¹²⁰? They said to him, because it becomes scrambled¹²¹. He said to them, this one is already scrambled. What is the rule about vessels which were there at the time of delivery? Let us hear from the following which we stated there¹²² 3:1. If a cow is pregnant the first time and has a miscarriage, what she is delivered of is “opening of the womb” (Ex. 34:19) and must be treated as holy. While a calf born afterwards may be her firstling, it is no longer “opening the womb” and, therefore, not a sacrifice.: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, if a cow brought forth a cake of blood, that should be buried and she is freed from the rule of firstlings.” It was stated on this: It does not bring impurity by being carried¹²³ 11:40). If the stillbirth does not have any features which make it recognizable as an animal, it does not induce the impurity of cadavers.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said the same thing¹²⁴ 22a.. This implies that vessels which were there at the time of delivery are pure¹²⁵ 21b, this is a baraita ascribed to R. Ḥiyya (the Elder.).

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ The entire Mishnah follows R. Simeon’s reasoning that there must have been a fetus which failed to develop; the only difference between R. Simeon and the majority relates to the impurity of the dead. The same statement in the Babli, 27b. ¹¹⁷ R. Simeon agrees with the first statement in the Mishnah. The same statement in the Babli, 27b. ¹¹⁸ A complete human fetus (older than 40 days after conception) is a human corpse and causes the impurity of the dead, in particular the impurity of a “tent” which applies to all the vessels in the “tent” (Num. ¹¹⁹ R. Simeon holds that a fetus whose existence can only be inferred from the existence of a placenta will never be born intact. ¹²⁰ Tosephta 4:13. The Sages, who hold that the room in which the woman is delivered from the empty placenta becomes a “tent” containing human remains, will agree that, if the placenta and all that remains is carried out from there in a basin, the next room is no longer a “tent” and remains pure. The same argument in made the Babli, 27a. ¹²¹ By the delivery and the motion, the undeveloped fetus will no longer be complete in one piece. ¹²² Mishnah Bekhorot ¹²³ If somebody carries the cadaver of a kosher animal (even without touching it), he and his clothing become impure (Lev. ¹²⁴ The same statement is in the Babli, Bekhorot ¹²⁵ For R. Simeon, the room in which the woman was delivered is not a “tent” transmitting the impurity of the dead. This argument also establishes that practice follows R. Simeon. In the Babli, 27a quoting Tosephta 4:13, this is clear since it identifies the anonymous Mishnah as R. Meïr’s and states that R. Jehudah and R. Yose support R. Simeon. In the Babli, Bekhorot

MISHNAH: If a woman miscarries¹²⁶ a sexless, or a hermaphrodite¹²⁷, and a male¹²⁸, she shall observe for a male and a female¹²⁹. If it was a sexless and a male, or a hermaphrodite and a male, she shall observe for a male and a female¹³⁰. A sexless and a female, or a hermaphrodite and a female, she shall observe for a female exclusively¹³¹. If it came out in pieces or defective, it is born as soon as most of its body came out¹³². If it was a regular birth, when most of its head came out. When is it most of its head? If the forehead came out¹³³. If a woman miscarries and it is not known what it was, she shall observe for a male and a female. If it is not known whether there was a fetus, she shall observe for a male, a female, and menstruation¹³⁴15:25–30). For this, one follows the rules of the male, not the female.. If she miscarries on the 40 day, she gives no thought to a child¹³⁵. On the 41 day, she shall observe for a male, a female, and menstruation¹³⁶. Rebbi Ismael says, on the 41st day, she shall observe for a male and menstruation, on the 81st day, she shall observe for a male, a female, and menstruation for the male is fully formed by the 41st day and the female by the 81st. But the Sages say, the creation of males and females is identical, both on the 41st.

footnotes: ¹²⁶ The rules of this Mishnah are valid also for live births. It is formulated for a miscarriage since it is part of a series speaking mostly of miscarriages. ¹²⁷ A child without either male or female sex characteristics. The child could be either a male with an ingrown penis or an undeveloped female. ¹²⁸ This word is missing in the Halakhah, the Babli, and the independent Mishnah mss.; it is a scribal error. ¹²⁹ The restrictions for male and female, cf. Note 14. ¹³⁰ Since the second child could be a female. While the mother of live twins, one a male and one a female, observes only the rules for a female, in this case the male is certain but the female uncertain. Therefore, the mother has to observe the rules for a male and only those rules of a female which are restrictive, not those which are permissive. ¹³¹ This is not different from the rules for twins of different sexes since the days of impurity and purity for a male are contained, respectively, in those for a female. ¹³² This is the point in time from which the impurity of birth is counted. ¹³³ From this moment on, the child is a person in law and cannot be killed even if the birth endangers the life of the mother. ¹³⁴ If there was no child, there are no days of purity. She is impure like a menstruating woman for 14 days. It is traditional that 11 days after the menstrual period, i. e., days 8 to 19 in the menstrual cycle, no menstruation can occur. Therefore, if the woman has a bloody discharge after day 8, she is impure in the impurity of flow (Lev. ¹³⁵ The human character of a fetus starts at the end of the 40th day after conception. A termination of pregnancy before this time is no abortion. ¹³⁶ Since so early in the pregnancy it falls under the rules of a miscarriage whose nature cannot be determined.

HALAKHAH: “If a woman miscarries a sexless, or a hermaphrodite,” etc. In all cases in which we have stated “she shall observe for a male and a female,” it means 14 [days] impure and 26 pure; one puts on her the restrictions of both male and female¹⁴. That means, for her house¹³⁷. But for pure food she observes the rules of a female [birth]. “If it was a sexless and a male, or a hermaphrodite and a male, she shall observe for a male and a female,” one takes into account the possibility of a male¹³⁸. “A sexless and a female, or a hermaphrodite and a female, she shall observe for a female exclusively,” does one not take into account the possibility of a male? This implies that if she gave birth to a male and a female, or a female and a male¹³⁹, she observes the rules for a female¹³⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁴ 14 days of impurity as of a female followed by 26 days of purity (the 33 of a male minus 7 days assigned to the impurity of a female birth). ¹³⁷ For sexual relations with her husband; cf. Note 39. ¹³⁸ The rules are restrictive since the sexless or the hermaphrodite might in reality be males. Therefore, the female influences only for impurity, not for purity. ¹³⁹ The order in which the twins are born may be important for rules of inheritance; it is irrelevant for rules of purity and impurity. ¹³⁰ Since the second child could be a female. While the mother of live twins, one a male and one a female, observes only the rules for a female, in this case the male is certain but the female uncertain. Therefore, the mother has to observe the rules for a male and only those rules of a female which are restrictive, not those which are permissive.

If it was in pieces and the head came out, what is the rule? Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Eleazar disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, its head counts for most of it. Rebbi Eleazar said, its head is like any other of its limbs¹⁴⁰. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If it came out in pieces or defective, it is born as soon as most of its body came out.” Explain it if its head came out¹⁴¹. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: “If it was a regular birth¹⁴², when most of its head came out.” Did not the first part say, the head is nothing?¹⁴³ Explain it¹⁴⁴ about the incomplete body. Rebbi Jonathan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; Rebbi Jonathan agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁴⁵, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish with Rebbi Eleazar. Rebbi Ze‘ira showed the colleagues his forehead with the skull¹⁴⁶. One of the house of Gamliel ben Rebbi Leani asked before Rebbi Mana: Since you say, it is a child, does this not imply that one who comes after him is firstborn neither for inheritance nor for the Cohen¹⁴⁷ 8:1 states that any child born after an initial miscarriage such as described in this Chapter is a firstborn for inheritance but not for redemption by a Cohen (*Ex.*13:15).. He said to him, explain it if both were stillborn¹⁴⁸ 21:15), he cannot have been delivered by caesarean section and he must be the father’s first (Deut 21:17), but not necessarily the mother’s. Since a miscarriage is not counted for the father, only for the mother, the next child still can claim the double part of the inheritance (Sifry Deut. 217)..

footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ Their disagreement is confirmed in the Babli, 29a. ¹⁴¹ The head is called “most of the body”. ¹⁴² If the head appeared first, even if it was a stillbirth with an incomplete body. ¹⁴³ A “regular birth” must refer to a fully formed body since otherwise the first statement, that one needs most of the body, contradicts the second, that the skull with the forehead is enough. From the last statement of the Mishnah there is no objection to R. Eleazar since it does not speak of a defective fetus. ¹⁴⁴ The first, but not the second statement of the second half of the Mishnah. ¹⁴⁵ Here ends the Genizah fragment. ¹⁴⁶ That a birth is counted only from the moment that the forehead with the greater part of the skull had appeared. ¹⁴⁷ Mishnah Bekhorot ¹⁴⁸ Obviously any miscarriage produces a stillborn baby. The rules of the firstborn for inheritance have nothing to do with those of the firstborn for redemption. While the firstborn for inheritance must be born (Deut

Rebbi Isaac bar Nahman in the name or Rebbi Eleazar: The head of a bird by most of it¹⁴⁹ 22:30), a four-legged animal whose membrame encasing the brain or esophagus is punctured by the most minute hole is unfit for consumption. It is asserted here that these strict rules do not apply for birds.. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Samuel: The throat of a bird by most of it. There came a case before Rebbi Yose about [a bird whose throat] was punctured by a needle’s width. Do we not know what “most” means¹⁵⁰44a/b, the definition of “most of the throat” is in dispute.?

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ This has nothing to do with the topic discussed before; it refers to the rules of kosher food. Since “you shall not eat meat from a torn animal” (Ex. ¹⁵⁰ Certainly, a hole the width of a needle is not “most”. In the Babli, Ḥulin