Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah

Folio 21a

CHAPTER III

MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN ABORTED A SHAPELESS OBJECT,⁸  IF THERE WAS BLOOD WITH IT, SHE IS UNCLEAN,⁹  OTHERWISE SHE IS CLEAN¹⁰  R. JUDAH RULED: IN EITHER CASE SHE IS UNCLEAN.¹¹

IF A WOMAN ABORTED AN OBJECT THAT WAS LIKE A RIND, LIKE A HAIR, LIKE EARTH, LIKE RED FLIES, LET HER PUT IT IN WATER AND IF IT DISSOLVES¹²  SHE IS UNCLEAN,⁹  BUT IF IT DOES NOT SHE IS CLEAN.¹³

IF AN ABORTION WAS IN THE SHAPE OF FISHES, LOCUSTS, OR ANY FORBIDDEN ANIMALS OR CREEPING THINGS, IF THERE WAS BLOOD WITH THEM SHE IS UNCLEAN,⁹  OTHERWISE SHE IS CLEAN.¹³

IF AN ABORTION HAD THE SHAPE OF A BEAST, A WILD ANIMAL OR A BIRD, WHETHER CLEAN OR UNCLEAN,¹⁴  IF IT WAS A MALE SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND SUBSEQUENT CLEANNESS FOR THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED] FOR A MALE,¹⁵  AND IF IT WAS A FEMALE SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND SUBSEQUENT CLEANNESS FOR THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED] FOR A FEMALE,¹⁶  BUT IF THE SEX IS UNKNOWN SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND SUBSEQUENT CLEANNESS FOR THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED] FOR BOTH MALE AND FEMALE;¹⁷  SO R. MEIR. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: ANYTHING THAT HAS NOT THE SHAPE OF A HUMAN BEING CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A HUMAN CHILD.

GEMARA. Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: R. Judah declared the woman¹⁸  unclean only where the object had the colour of one of the four kinds of blood,¹⁹  but if it had that of any of the other kinds of blood²⁰  she is clean.²¹  R. Johanan, however, stated: [If the object had the colour] of one of the four kinds of blood²²  all²³  agree that the woman is unclean and if it had the colour of any of the other kinds of blood all²⁴  agree that she is clean; they²⁵  differ only in the case where she aborted something and she does not know what she aborted.²⁶  [In such a case.] R. Judah holds, one must be guided by the nature of most of shapeless objects, and most shapeless objects have the colour of one of the four kinds of blood, while the Rabbis hold that we do not say, 'most shapeless objects have the colour of one of the four kinds of blood'. But is this correct?²⁷  Surely when R. Hoshaia arrived from Nehardea he came [to the schoolhouse] and brought with him a Baraitha: If a woman aborted a shapeless object that was red, black, green or white,²⁸  if there was blood with it, she is unclean, otherwise she is clean. R. Judah ruled: In either case she is unclean. Now does not this present a difficulty against Samuel in one respect and against R. Johanan in two respects? 'Against Samuel in one respect, since Samuel stated, 'R. Judah declared the woman unclean only where the shapeless object had the colour of one of the four kinds of blood' whereas here 'green and white'²⁹  were mentioned and R. Judah nevertheless disagrees.³⁰  And were you to reply that R. Judah differs only in respect of red and black but not in that of green or white [the question would arise:] For whose benefit then was green and white mentioned? If it be suggested: For that of the Rabbis,³¹  [it could be retorted:] Since the Rabbis declared the woman clean even in the case of red and black blood,³²  was it any longer necessary to state that the same law applies also to green and white?²⁹  Must it not then be conceded that these³³  were mentioned for the benefit of R. Judah³⁴  who, it thus follows, does differ.³⁵  Furthermore, according to R. Johanan³⁶  who also stated, '[If it had the colour] of one of the four kinds of blood all agree that she is unclean', [the additional difficulty arises:] Were not red and black also mentioned and the Rabbis nevertheless differ.³⁷  And should you reply that the Rabbis differ only in regard to green and white but not in that of red and black [the difficulty would arise:] For whose benefit, then, were red and black mentioned? If it be suggested: For that of R. Judah [it could be retorted:] Since green and white are regarded as unclean, was it at all necessary to mention red and black? Must it not then be conceded that these were mentioned for the benefit of the Rabbis who, it follows, do differ?³⁷  — Rather, explained R. Nahman b. Isaac: The point at issue between them³⁸  is the question whether it is possible for the uterus³⁹  to open⁴⁰  without bleeding.⁴¹  They³⁸  thus differ on the same principle as that on which the following Tannas differ. For it was taught: If a woman was in hard labour for two days⁴²  and on the third she aborted and⁴³  does not know what she had aborted⁴⁴

1. Composed of one part of wine and two parts of water (cf. our Mishnah).
2. In respect of its colour.
3. Lit., 'new and not old'. According to an interpretation of Maimonides and Semag (cf. Maharsha) the Sharon wine, when used in an examination of blood, must first be new and undiluted and then mixed expressly for the purpose of the examination with two parts of water.
4. Kinds of wine.
5. Which is made of thin and transparent glass.
6. Lit., 'of all the world'.
7. The weight of one hundred zuz.
8. Lit., 'piece'.
9. As a menstruant.
10. Because, in the absence of blood, she cannot be regarded as a menstruant, and, since a shapeless object is no proper birth, she cannot be regarded as a woman in childbirth.
11. This is explained in the Gemara infra.
12. Into liquid blood.
13. Cf. supra n. 3 mut. mut.
14. Cf. Lev. XI.
15. Cf. Lev. XII, 2-4.
16. Cf. ibid. 5.
17. Sc. she is subject to the restrictions of both: The period of her uncleanness is fourteen days (as for a female) and not seven (as for a male) while the subsequent period of her cleanness terminates on the fortieth day (as for a male) and not on the eightieth (as for a female).
18. Who ABORTED A SHAPELESS OBJECT.
19. Described in the Mishnah supra 19a as unclean. (Black and red which in the Mishnah are regarded as two different colours and, therefore, bring the total number of unclean colours to five, are here regarded as one colour since the former is but a deterioration of the latter). R. Judah holds that the shapeless object is but a piece of clotted blood. Hence, if its colour is that of unclean blood, the woman, though not in childbirth, must be deemed unclean as a menstruant.
20. White or green, for instance.
21. Since she is neither in childbirth nor a menstruant.
22. Cf. supra n. 2.
23. Even the Rabbis.
24. Even R. Judah.
25. The Rabbis and R. Judah (cf. prev. two nn.).
26. The object having been lost.
27. Lit., 'I am not'.
28. The first two are of the unclean colours while the last two are among the clean ones (cf. supra 19a).
29. Which are not of the four unclean kinds.
30. With the Rabbis, maintaining that the woman is unclean.
31. I.e., to indicate that the Rabbis regard the woman in such cases as clean.
32. Which are among the four unclean colours.
33. Green and white.
34. Viz., that even with such colours R. Judah regards the woman as unclean.
35. From the Rabbis. How then could Samuel maintain that in such cases R. Judah regards the woman as clean?
36. Against whom, since he stated that in the case of the other kinds of blood 'all agree that she is clean', the difficulty just pointed out against Samuel equally applies.
37. From R. Judah and declare it clean.
38. R. Judah and the Rabbis.
39. Lit., 'grave'.
40. When an embryo or any other object passes out.
41. Blood of labour. Both R. Judah and the Rabbis regard the shapeless object as a piece of flesh, and not as a mass of congealed blood. Hence whatever its colour the woman cannot be regarded as a menstruant. R. Judah, however, maintains that the uterus never opens without some bleeding though this may sometimes escape observation. The woman is, therefore, unclean on account of the inevitable discharge of the blood of labour even though the object was green or white and no blood whatsoever had been observed. The Rabbis, on the other hand, maintain that the uterus sometimes opens without any accompanying bleeding and the woman is, therefore, clean whenever no discharge is observed.
42. Within the eleven days' period intervening between the menstrual periods.
43. Besides being uncertain whether the abortion was accompanied by bleeding.
44. Sc. whether it was an embryo or a mere lump of flesh.

Another version reads as follows. Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: R. Judah declared the woman unclean only where the object had the colour of one of the four kinds of blood, but if it had that of any of the other kinds of blood she is clean. But is this correct? Surely when R. Hoshaia arrived from Nehardea he came [to the schoolhouse] and brought with him a Baraitha: If a woman aborted a shapeless object that was red, black, green or white, if there was blood with it, she is unclean, otherwise she is clean; but R. Judah ruled: In either case she is unclean. Now here red, black, green and white were mentioned and R. Judah nevertheless disagrees.⁵  And should you reply that R. Judah differs only in respect of red and black but not in that of green and white [the question would arise]: For⁶  whose benefit then was green and white mentioned? If it be suggested: For that of the Rabbis [it could be retorted]: Since the Rabbis declared the woman clean even in the case of red and black blood, was it any longer necessary to state that the same law applies also to green and white? Must it not then be conceded that these were mentioned for the benefit of R. Judah who,⁷  it thus follows, does differ?⁸  — Rather, said R. Johanan,⁹  the point at issue between them is the question whether it is possible for the uterus to open without bleeding.⁵  They thus differ on the same principle as that on which the following Tannas differ. For it was taught: If a woman was in hard labour for two days and on the third she aborted and she does not know what she had aborted, her case is one of doubtful childbirth and doubtful zibah, and she must, therefore, bring a sacrifice which may not be eaten. R. Joshua ruled: She must bring a sacrifice, and it may be eaten, since it is impossible for the uterus to open without some bleeding.⁵

Our Rabbis taught: If a woman aborted a shapeless object. Symmachus ruled in the name of R. Meir, and R. Simeon b. Menasia likewise gave the same ruling: It must be split, and if there was blood in it the woman is unclean and if there is none in it she is clean. This is in agreement with the Rabbis but also more restrictive than the ruling of the Rabbis. It is 'in agreement with the Rabbis' who ruled that it was possible for the uterus to open without bleeding; but it is 'also more restrictive than the ruling of the Rabbis', since they hold that only where the blood was with it¹⁰  is the woman unclean¹¹  but not where it was only within it,¹²  while Symmachus holds that [the woman is unclean] even if the blood was only within it.¹²  Another [Baraitha] taught: If a woman aborted a shapeless object. R. Aha ruled: It must be split, and if its interior shows red,¹³  the woman is unclean, otherwise she is clean. This is in agreement with Symmachus,¹⁴  but also more restrictive than the ruling of Symmachus.¹⁵  Again another [Baraitha] taught: If a woman aborted a shapeless object, R. Benjamin ruled: It must be split, and if there was a bone in it, its mother is unclean by reason of childbirth.¹⁶  R. Hisda explained: This applies only to a white object.¹⁷  So also when a pair [of scholars]¹⁸  from Adiabene arrived they came [into the schoolhouse] and brought with them the following Baraitha: If a woman aborted a white shapeless object it must be split and if there was a bone in it the mother is unclean by reason of childbirth.¹⁶

R. Johanan citing R. Simeon b. Yohai ruled: If a woman aborted a shapeless object it must be split, and if it contained a quantity of accumulated blood she is unclean, otherwise¹⁹  she is clean. This is in agreement with Symmachus²⁰  but is also the most lenient of all the previous rulings.²¹

R. Jeremiah enquired of R. Zera: What is the ruling where a woman observed a discharge of blood in a tube?²²  Since the All Merciful has said, In her flesh²³  He implied: But not in a tube,²⁴  or is it possible that the text, 'In her flesh', was required for the deduction that it²⁵  causes uncleanness within²⁶  as well as without?²⁷  — The other replied: The All Merciful said, In her flesh²³  implying: But not in a tube; for if the expression 'In her flesh' had been required for the deduction that it²⁵  causes uncleanness within as well as without, Scripture should have said, Her flesh,²⁸  why then did it say, 'In her flesh'? Both rulings may, therefore, be deduced. But did not R. Johanan rule in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: If a woman aborted a shapeless object it must be split, and if there was in it a quantity of accumulated blood she is unclean, otherwise she is clean?²⁹  — What a comparison!³⁰  In that case it is usual for a woman to observe blood in a shapeless abortion,³¹  but in this case it is not usual for a woman to observe blood in a tube.³²

May it be suggested that the question of blood in a tube is a point at issue between Tannas? For it was taught: If a woman aborted a shapeless object, even though it is full of blood, it is only where there was a discharge of blood with it³³  that the woman is unclean; otherwise she is clean. R. Eliezer ruled: 'In her flesh'²³  implies: But not [where the blood was] within a sac or within any shapeless abortion. (Is not R. Eliezer's ruling identical with that of the first Tanna?³⁴  — Read: For R. Eliezer ruled, 'In her flesh' implies: But not [where the blood was] within a sac or within any shapeless abortion). But the Sages ruled: This is not menstrual blood but the blood of a shapeless object.³⁵  Now does not the first Tanna also declare her clean?³⁶  But the fact is that the difference between them is the case where the abortion was chapped. The first Tanna is of the opinion that 'In her flesh' implies: But not [where the blood was] in a sac or in a shapeless object,³⁷  and the same applies also to a tube.³⁷  This, however, holds good only where it³⁸  was smooth,³⁹  but if it was chapped⁴⁰  the woman is unclean. What is his reason? It may be described as 'In her flesh'.⁴¹  Thereupon the Rabbis came to declare: Although it³⁸  was chapped [the woman is clean since] the discharge is not menstrual but that of the shapeless object.⁴²  Menstrual blood, however, is undoubtedly a cause of uncleanness⁴³  even if it was in a tube!⁴⁴  — Abaye replied: As regards a tube all⁴⁵  agree that the woman is clean,⁴⁶

1. Since it is not known whether (a) the abortion was an embryo in consequence of which, whether there was bleeding or not, she is to bring the sacrifice prescribed for a woman in childbirth; or (b) a mere lump of flesh, in which case, if there was no bleeding, no such sacrifice is due; or (c) there was a discharge of blood with (b) in which case (being that of a discharge on three consecutive days) she must bring the sacrifice prescribed for zibah.
2. To provide (cf. prev. n.) against the possibility of (a) or (c).
3. Since it is possible, as explained in note 3(b), that she is neither in the position of one in childbirth nor in that of one in zibah, in consequence of which she is not liable to either sacrifice, and the bird that she brought as a sin-offering, having had its head pinched off in accordance with the ritual prescribed for such a sacrifice, is (owing to the possibility that it is no sacrifice at all and that it is, therefore, subject to the rules of slaughter appertaining to unconsecrated animals) thus forbidden to be eaten as the flesh of nebelah.
4. So that a sacrifice is due in either case: If she gave birth to an embryo she has to bring the sacrifice prescribed for one in childbirth, and if she merely aborted a lump of flesh, since this was inevitably accompanied by bleeding, she (cf. supra n. 4) is regarded as a zabah and is liable to bring the one prescribed for zibah.
5. Cf. notes on prev. version.
6. Cf. BaH.
7. Since he ruled, 'In either case she is unclean'.
8. From the Rabbis who declared the woman clean. How then could Samuel maintain that 'if it had that of any of the other kinds of blood she is clean'?
9. Cf. Rashal. Cur. edd. in parenthesis, 'Rab Judah'.
10. Externally, sc. the passing out of the abortion was accompanied by bleeding.
11. Lit., 'yes'.
12. The object.
13. Though it contained no collected blood
14. Who laid down supra that blood in the interior of the object causes the same uncleanness as external blood that was discharged with it.
15. He required accumulated blood while here mere redness is regarded as a cause of uncleanness.
16. And she is subject to the restrictions of the laws of the prescribed days of both uncleanness and cleanness. Her period of uncleanness extends over fourteen days (prescribed for the birth of a female, and not seven as for a male) while her period of cleanness terminates on the fortieth day (prescribed for a male and not on the eightieth prescribed for a female).
17. Which is regarded as a kind of flesh.
18. Zuga. Var. lec. 'Zuza' and 'Zuwa'. (prop. noun).
19. Sc. if the blood is not accumulated in a considerable quantity.
20. Who ruled that blood in the interior is a cause of menstrual uncleanness as external blood.
21. Since according to it blood that is not accumulated (contrary to Symmachus) and a red interior (contrary to R. Aha) are no causes of uncleanness.
22. That was inserted in the uterus.
23. Lev. XV, 19, dealing with the menstruant.
24. The woman is consequently clean.
25. Menstrual blood.
26. In the vagina after it had left the uterus.
27. Sc. when it had completely left the body. In the case of zibah and the emission of semen there can be no uncleanness before the discharge had left the body.
28. V. marg. gl. Cur. edd. in parenthesis 'in flesh'.
29. Supra. Now if the blood in the abortion causes uncleanness why should not also blood in a tube?
30. Lit., 'thus, now'.
31. It comes, therefore, under the description 'in her flesh'; hence the woman's uncleanness.
32. Hence R. Zera's ruling that the woman is clean.
33. When it passed out.
34. Obviously it is. Why then should R. Eliezer merely repeat another authority's statement?
35. The woman is consequently clean.
36. Cf. prev. n. What then is the difference between their respective views?
37. Since in these cases there is an interposition between the woman's body ('her flesh') and the blood.
38. The abortion.
39. So that all the blood within it is completely separated from the woman's body.
40. In consequence of which some of the blood and the woman's body come in direct contact.
41. It being a Pentateuchal ordinance that when the blood was in direct contact with the woman's body uncleanness is caused.
42. As it is not menstrual at all it matters little whether it did, or did not come in contact with the body of the woman who, consequently, is in either case regarded as clean.
43. Since the discharge came from the uterus.
44. It thus follows that R. Zera's view is that of the first Tanna while the Rabbis opposed this view. Is it likely, however, that R. Zera adopted the view of the first Tanna, an individual, when it was opposed by the Rabbis who were in the majority?
45. Even the Rabbis.
46. Since the Scriptural text 'In her flesh' cannot be applied to it (Rashal).