Niddah

R. Adda b. Ahaba enquired of Abaye: According to R. Meir who ruled that a beast that was in the bowels of a woman is a valid birth, what is the ruling where a human child was in the bowels of a beast?  — In what respect does this matter? — In that of permitting it to be eaten.  But why can you not solve this question from the following ruling of R. Johanan; for R. Johanan ruled: If one slaughtered a beast and found in it an object of the shape of a dove it  is forbidden to be eaten?  — What a comparison! In that case  there are neither cloven feet nor hoofs, but in this case, granted that there are no cloven feet, there is at least some thing like a hoof. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: ANYTHING THAT HAS NOT etc. R. Jeremiah b. Abba citing Rab stated: All  agree that if its body was that of a he-goat and its face that of a human being it is regarded as a human child;  if its body was that of a human being and its face that of a he-goat it is no valid birth.  They  differ only where it had the face of a human being but was so created that one of its eyes was like that of a beast, since R. Meir holds that it  need only have some of the features of a human face  while the Sages hold that it  must have all the features of a human face. They  said to R. Jeremiah b. Abba, Was not the reverse taught: R. Meir said, 'It must have all the features of a human face'  while the Sages said, 'It need only have some of the features of a human face'?  — He answered them: If this was taught so you may well rely on it. R. Jeremiah b. Abba citing R. Johanan ruled:  The forehead, the eyebrows, the eyes, the cheeks and the chin must all be present at the same time.  Raba, however, citing Hasa ruled:  The forehead, the eyebrow, the eye, the cheek and the chin must all be present at the same time.  These, however,  do not differ in principle from one another, since the former ruled according to him who said that  'it must have all the features of a human face'. while the latter ruled according to him who stated, 'it need only have some of the features of a human face'. An objection was raised: By the 'shape of the face' of which the Sages spoke  was meant the presence of even only one of the features of the face,  except the ear.  This shows, does it not, that a single feature suffices?  — Abaye replied: That  was taught only to indicate what constitutes a hindrance,  and it  is in agreement with him who stated [that the reading]  was 'it must have all the features of a human face'. And if you prefer I might say: It  is in fact in agreement with him who stated that the reading  was it need only have one of the features of a human face' but  the meaning  of 'one'  is one of each. Raba ruled: If a foetus was created with one eye and one thigh, the woman who gives birth to it  is unclean  if these were on the side,  but if they were in the middle  she is clean.  Raba further ruled: If a child's gullet is perforated  his mother is unclean,  but if his gullet is closed up  she is clean. Our Rabbis taught: If a woman aborted a stumped body she is not unclean by reason of such a birth. And what is meant by a stumped body? — Rabbi replied: One short of a part which if taken from a live person would cause him to die. And what is the extent of the part that if taken from a live person would cause him to die? — R. Zakkai replied: