(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Nidah 24



(a) Rebbi describes the Din of Guf Atum (which in this sense means 'missing') like this :'The amount that, were one to remove it from a living person, he would not live'.

(b) Rebbi Zakai holds that a Tereifah cannot live. Consequently, if the leg from above the knee is missing - the amount that would render a living person a Tereifah - it is a 'Guf Atum', and the mother is not Temei'ah Leidah.
Rebbi Yanai holds that a Tereifah *can* live. Consequently, the Shiur of Rebbi Zakai would not be a 'Guf Atum', according to him.

However, he agrees with Rebbi Elazar, who rules, that someone whose leg up to the thigh is missing, leaving a gaping hole (comprising the thigh up to and including the genitals), is a 'Neveilah mei'Chayim'. So according to him, that, in the form of a miscarriage, would constitute a 'Guf Atum.' Rebbi Yochanan maintains that a Tereifah can survive; neither does he agree with Rebbi Elazar. Therefore, a miscarriage will be a 'Guf Atum' only if the entire lower half of the body is missing up to the navel.

(a) When Rav Papa says that if there is missing from a baby from the top and downwards, even the smallest amount, the mother is not Temei'ah Leidah, he means that if the smallest amount is missing from the skull, the mother is not Temei'ah Leidah.

(b) An 'Apaksa de'Dikla' is the form of a baby with the lower half of the body like the trunk of a palm-tree, with the arms and the legs growing out of its shoulders.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, if the baby is 'Panav Musmasin', then the mother *is* Temei'ah Leidah. And he proves this from the Beraisa, which writes by 'Yad Chatuchah' -'ve'Ein Chosheshin Shema *mi'Guf Atum* Ba' - and does not add 'O mi'Mi she'Panav Musmasin', implying that 'Panav Musmasin' is Temei'ah Leidah.

(b) According to Rav Papi, Resh Lakish holds that even 'Panav Tuchos' also renders the mother Temei'ah Leidah, whereas Rebbi Yochanan maintains that only 'Panav Musmasin' renders the mother Temei'ah Leidah, but not 'Panav Tuchos'.

(c) The reason that Resh Lakish does not now ask from the same Beraisa on Rebbi Yochanan, as Rebbi Yochanan asked on him in the first Lashon, is because it is obvious that Rebbi Yochanan will answer that 'Guf Atum' incorporates 'Panav Tuchos'.

(d) 'Guf Atum' means that the shape of face is actually missing, whereas by 'Panav Musmasin' it is only slightly squashed, but the face is still intact.

(e) If one is Machmir in declaring a woman Temei'ah Leidah (le'Hachmir - one week for a boy, and two for a girl) when she is not, then there is a suspicion that one may just come to give her the thirty-three or sixty-six days of Taharah as well.

(a) Rav holds that there is no such creature that has two backs and two spinal cords. Consequently, when the Torah forbids a Shesu'ah, it must be referring to the unborn freak-baby-calf or lamb of a regular animal inside its mother's womb.
On the other hand, since there is no such creature (and we learnt earlier, that only those miscarriages which belong to species that can live, render the mother Temei'ah), the mother will not be Temei'ah Leidah.

(b) According to Shmuel, a specific creature with two backs and spinal cords does exist, and that is the Shesu'ah which the Torah prohibits. Consequently, if a fetus of any animal is found inside the Shechted mother's womb with two spinal cords and two backs, it is permitted - just like every other fetus is. On the other hand, if the mother miscarries such a creature, it is Metamei - since there is such a species which can live.

(c) The Beraisa which invalidates an animal with two spinal cords etc., from the Bechorah, is speaking, not literally, but about an animal with a bent spinal cord which looks as if it has two spinal cords. Such an animal is Kasher by Chullin, and Pasul by Bechor.

(d) The truth of the matter is, that the Kashya from the Beraisa is equally a Kashya on Shmuel, who also agrees that, once the Shesu'ah is born, it is prohibited.
The reason that Rav Shimi bar Chiya asked on Rav is because he was Rav's grandson, and was constantly by him.

(e) 'Shimi At' is simply a sign of love of a grandfather to a grandson.

(a) Rav explains 'Yatza Mi she'Yesh Lo Shenei Gabin u'Shenei Shedra'os' to mean that, whereas a fourth-month small baby animal or an eighth-month large baby animal which are still in their mother's womb are permitted, one with two spinal cords and two backs is not.
Shmuel can obviously not learn the Beraisa this way, since, according to him, such a fetus, is permitted.

(b) He therefore learns the Beraisa like this: 'a fourth-month (or less) baby of a small species and an eighth baby (or less) of a large species are forbidden, when they are born. But that speaks only when their term of pregnancy has not concluded; if it has, then, when they are born, they permitted. Which is not the case by an animal with two spinal cords and two backs, which remains forbidden, even after it has concluded its term of pregnancy.




(a) The Beraisa quoted by the expert learns from the juxtaposition of the Pasuk of Leidah to that of Bris, that only a baby that is fit to have a Bris, renders its mother Temei'ah Leidah, to exclude one whose body or head are not properly formed.

(b) Rav instructed him to add also a baby that has two spinal cords and two backs.

(a) The Beraisa, which writes that less than that, is considered a miscarriage, may not be referring to an eighth-month baby (of a larger species of animal), which might well be Kasher, but to the four-month baby of a smaller species.

(b) The Chidush is, that we may well otherwise have thought that any baby that emerges two months before its due date will always survive - even if a five-month baby of a smaller species of animal is born in three months will not.

(a) A Demus Lilis is a baby in the shape of a demon (a human-being with wings). Chazal considered this to be a human baby with wings, so the mother *is* Temei'ah Leidah.

(b) When Rabban Gamliel heard that Rebbi Chanina, Rebbi Yehoshua's nephew, had ruled that a miscarriage in the form of a snake is Temei'ah Leidah, he ordered Rebbi Yehoshua to come and see him together with his nephew.

(c) On the way to Rabban Gamliel, Rebbi Chanina's daughter-in-law came out to ask Rebbi Yehoshua this very Sha'aleh. When he ruled 'Tehorah', she exclaimed rather surprisingly that her mother-in-law had told her in Rebbi Yehoshua's name that she was Temei'ah. When she reminded him of the reason (because the eye-balls of a snake resemble those of human beings), he recalled that he had indeed issued such a ruling.

(d) The Gemara learns from here, that a Talmid-Chacham who says a Chidush, should always give the reason for what he says.

(a) A Shefir Merukam is the skin of the baby which has already been formed; whereas a Shefir she'Eino Merukam is one which has not yet been formed. The former renders the mother Temei'ah Leidah, the latter does not. She must sit fourteen days of Tum'ah, in case it is a female, but only thirty-three days of Taharah, in case it is a male.

(b) The Mishnah of Sandel, where the woman is Temei'ah because there has been a second baby, must be speaking in a case when the second baby is a male. That is when the Mishnah says 'Teishev la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah', because, if not for the Sandel, she would only sit seven days of Tum'ah, because of the other male.
Had the other baby been a female, then she would anyway sit fourteen days of Tum'ah and sixty-six days of Taharah, so what will she add by sitting for a male and a female for the Sandel?

(c) The Gemara also explains that we do not suspect that perhaps the colors in the Shefir are from a baby which melted because, had the baby melted, some of it would have disintegrated, so how can our Mishnah write that the Shefir was *full of colors*; and because the Mishnah writes *colors* in the plural. Had the baby melted, the liquid would be all the same color, and not different colors.

(a) Aba Shaul knew that the bones of someone who drank strong, undiluted wine turned charred - and the same applies to someone who drank more wine than he ate.
The bones of someone who drank wine that was diluted, but not sufficiently, turned black (or dried up); and so too, those who ate proportionately more than they drank.
Whilst the bones of those who did it just right, were healthy.

(b) The thigh-bone in which Aba Shaul chased the deer was that of Og Melech ha'Bashan, and the eye in whose mass he nearly drowned was that of Avshalom, David ha'Melech's son.

(c) Although Aba Shaul was very tall, Rebbi Tarfon only reached his shoulders, Rebbi Meir reached up to Rebbi Tarfon's shoulders, Rebbi up to Rebbi Meir's, Rav up to Rebbi's Rav Yehudah up to Rav's and Ada Dayla up to Rav Yehudah's. (Probably, the Gemara is referring to their spiritual levels, and not to their physical height).

(d) Ada Dayla means Ada the beadle.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,