Niddah

It was stated: If a woman aborted a foetus whose face was mashed,  R. Johanan ruled: She  is unclean; and Resh Lakish ruled: She is clean. R. Johanan raised an objection against Resh Lakish: If a woman aborted a shaped  hand or a shaped foot she  is subject to the uncleanness of birth  and there is no need to consider the possibility  that it might have come from a shapeless body.  Now if it were so,  should it not have been stated, 'The possibility that it might have come from a shapeless body or from a foetus whose face was mashed'? R. Papi stated:  Where its  face was mashed no one  disputes the ruling that the woman is unclean. They only differ where its face was entirely covered over,  and the statement  was made in the reverse order: R. Johanan ruled: His mother is clean; and Resh Lakish ruled: His mother is unclean. Should not then  Resh Lakish raise an objection against R. Johanan from that [Baraitha]?  — Because the latter could have answered him: 'A stumped body' and 'a foetus whose face was entirely covered over are identical terms. The sons of R. Hiyya once toured the countryside. When they appeared before their father he asked them, 'Has any case been submitted for your consideration?' 'The case of a foetus whose face was entirely covered over', they told him 'has been submitted to us, and we decided that the woman was unclean'. 'Go back', he said to them, 'and declare as clean that which you have declared unclean. For what did you think?  That you are restricting the law;  but this is a restriction that results in a relaxation, for thereby  you also allow her  the days of cleanness'. It was stated: If one aborted a creature that had two backs and two spinal columns, Rab ruled: In the case of a woman it is no valid birth  and in that of a beast it is forbidden to be eaten;  but Samuel ruled: In the case of a woman it is a valid birth  and in that of a beast it is permitted to be eaten.  On what principle do they  differ? — On that of R. Hanin b. Abba; for R. Hanin b. Abba stated, 'The cloven'  is a creature that has two backs and two spinal columns'.  Rab maintains that such a creature exists nowhere in the world, and that when the All Merciful taught Moses about it  he must have taught him about one that was still in her dam's bowels, while Samuel maintains that such a creature does exist in the world so that when the All Merciful taught Moses about it  he taught him about the species in general,  but one that is still in its dam's bowels is well permitted to be eaten.  R. Shimi b. Hiyya pointed out an objection to Rab: R. Hanina b. Antigonus stated, Any [firstling of beasts] that had two backs and two spinal columns is unfit for the Temple service;  from which  it is obvious, is it not, that it is viable?  — 'Is it you, Shimi?' the other  replied, 'this  refers to a case where its spinal column was only crooked'. An objection was raised: Among embryos  there are some that are forbidden  viz, a four monthly embryo among small cattle, and an eight monthly one among large cattle, and one that is younger  is equally forbidden. From this is excluded one that had two backs and two spinal columns. Now what is meant by 'is excluded'? Obviously that it  is excluded from the category of embryos  in that it is forbidden to be eaten even while still in its dam's body?  — Rab  explains in accordance with his own view, and Samuel  explains it in accordance with his view. 'Rab explains in accordance with his own view', thus: A four monthly embryo among small cattle and an eighth monthly one among large cattle, and one that is younger is equally forbidden. This applies only where it saw the light  but while it is still in its dam's bowels it is permitted; but from this is excluded one that has two backs and two spinal columns which, even while still in its dam's bowels, is also forbidden.