Niddah

MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN ABORTED A SHAPELESS OBJECT,  IF THERE WAS BLOOD WITH IT, SHE IS UNCLEAN,  OTHERWISE SHE IS CLEAN  R. JUDAH RULED: IN EITHER CASE SHE IS UNCLEAN. 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 DISSOLVES  SHE IS UNCLEAN,  BUT IF IT DOES NOT SHE IS CLEAN. 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,  OTHERWISE SHE IS CLEAN. IF AN ABORTION HAD THE SHAPE OF A BEAST, A WILD ANIMAL OR A BIRD, WHETHER CLEAN OR UNCLEAN,  IF IT WAS A MALE SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND SUBSEQUENT CLEANNESS FOR THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED] FOR A MALE,  AND IF IT WAS A FEMALE SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND SUBSEQUENT CLEANNESS FOR THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED] FOR A FEMALE,  BUT IF THE SEX IS UNKNOWN SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND SUBSEQUENT CLEANNESS FOR THE PERIODS PRESCRIBED] FOR BOTH MALE AND FEMALE;  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 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.  R. Johanan, however, stated: [If the object had the colour] of one of the four kinds of blood  all  agree that the woman is unclean and if it had the colour of any of the other kinds of blood all  agree that she is clean; they  differ only in the case where she aborted something and she does not know what she aborted.  [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?  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. 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'  were mentioned and R. Judah nevertheless disagrees.  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,  [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, it thus follows, does differ.  Furthermore, according to R. Johanan  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.  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?  — Rather, explained R. Nahman b. Isaac: The point at issue between them  is the question whether it is possible for the uterus  to open  without bleeding.  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  does not know what she had aborted