Niddah

LET  HER PUT IT IN WATER AND IF IT DISSOLVES SHE IS UNCLEAN. Resh Lakish ruled: And [this must be done] with lukewarm water.  So it was also taught: Let her put it in water, viz., in lukewarm water. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: She [must attempt to] crush it with spittle on her nail. What is the practical difference between them?  — Rabina replied: The practical difference between them is [an abortion that can be] crushed by the exercise of pressure. Elsewhere we have learnt: How long must they  be soaked in the lukewarm water?  Twenty-four hours.  Now in this case,  what length of time is required? Do we require a period of twenty-four hours or not?  Is it only in regard to a creeping thing and carrion, which are tough, that a twenty-four hours' soaking is required but not in that of blood, which is soft, or is it possible that there is no difference? — This is undecided. IF AN ABORTION WAS IN THE SHAPE OF FISHES. But why does not R. Judah  disagree  in this case also?  — Resh Lakish replied: This  was indeed learnt as a controversial ruling,  and it  represents only the opinion of the Rabbis. R. Johanan, however, replied: It  may even be said to agree with R. Judah,  for R. Judah gave his ruling  only there, in the case of a SHAPELESS OBJECT, since it is the nature of blood to congeal and to assume the form of a shapeless object,  but [not here,  since] it  can never assume the form of a creature.  According, however, to that version in which R. Johanan stated that 'the point at issue between them is the question whether it is possible for the uterus to open without bleedings',  should not R. Judah  have disagreed in this case also? — He who learnt that version  reads here: Both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish replied: This  was learnt as a controversial ruling,  and it  represents only the view of the Rabbis. IF AN ABORTION HAD THE SHAPE OF A BEAST etc. Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: What is the reason of R. Meir? Since in their case  an expression of forming  is used as in that of man.  Now then, if an abortion was in the likeness of a sea-monster  would its mother be unclean by reason of child-birth, since an expression of forming was used in its case as in that of man, it having been said, And God created  the great sea-monsters?  — I can answer: An expression of forming  may be deduced from another expression of forming  but one of creating  may not be deduced from one of forming.  But where lies the practical difference between the two expressions? Surely the School of R. Ishmael taught: And the priest shall return,  and the priest shall come,  'returning' and 'coming' are the same thing!  Furthermore, why should not one expression of 'creating'  be deduced from another expression of 'creating', it being written, And God created man in His own image?  — I can answer: 'And … created'  is required for its own context while 'and … formed is available for deduction, hence it is that the expression of 'forming'  may be deducted from the similar one of 'forming'.  On the contrary [might it not be submitted that] 'And … formed'  was required for its own context while 'and … created'  is available for deduction, hence the expression of 'creating'  may be deduced from 'creating'?  — The fact is that the expression 'And … formed' is available for deduction on the two sides: It is available in the case of man  and it is also available in that of beast;  but the expression of 'And … created' is available for deduction only in the case of man  but it is not available for the purpose in that of sea-monsters.  But why is it  regarded available for deduction in the case of beast? If it be suggested because it is written, And God made the beast of the earth  and it is also written, And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field,  is not a similar expression [it may be retorted] also available for deduction in the case of a sea-monster, since it is written, And God made … and every thing that creepeth upon the ground,  and it is also written, And God created the great seamonsters?  — 'Every thing that creepeth' that was written in the previously mentioned verse refers to those on the dry land. What, however, is the practical difference between an expression that is available for deduction on one side and one that is available for deduction on two sides?  — The practical difference is the statement Rab Judah made in the name of Samuel who had it from R. Ishmael:  From any gezerah shawah  neither of whose terms is available for deduction  no deduction may be made;  if one of the terms is available for the purpose, then according to R. Ishmael, a deduction may be made and no refutation may be offered, while according to the Rabbis deduction may be made  but a refutation  may be offered; and if both terms are available for deduction, all  agree that deduction may be made and no refutation may be offered. As to R. Ishmael, however, what is the practical difference between a gezerah shawah one of whose terms only is available for deduction and one both of whose terms are available for the purpose? — The practical difference is that where there is one of which one term only is available for deduction and another both of which both terms are available for deduction we must leave the former