Niddah

Our Rabbis taught: If a woman aborted a shaped  hand or a shaped  foot she  is subject to the uncleanness of childbirth and there is no need to consider the possibility that it might have come from a shapeless body.  Both R. Hisda and Rabbah b. R. Huna ruled: She  is not allowed the days of cleanness.  What is the reason? — It might be assumed that  her bearing took place long ago.  R. Joseph raised an objection: If a woman aborted an embryo and  it is unknown what [was the sex of the embryo] she aborted she must continue [her periods of uncleanness and cleanness as] for both a male child and a female child.  Now if it is to be upheld  that in any such case  it might be assumed that her bearing took place long ago,  why  was it not also stated, 'and as for menstruation'?  — Abaye replied: If 'as for menstruation' had been mentioned it might have been presumed that  she brings a sacrifice  which  may not be eaten; hence we were informed  that it may be eaten. R. Huna ruled: If an embryo put forth its hand and then drew it back its mother is unclean on account of childbirth; for it is said, And it came to pass, when she bore,  that one put out a hand.  Rab Judah raised an objection: If an embryo put forth its hand its mother need not consider the possibility of any restriction!  — R. Nahman replied: This was explained to me by R. Huna that the woman must indeed consider the possibility [that it is a valid birth],  but we do not allow her the privilege of the clean days  unless the greater part of the embryo has issued forth. But was it not stated 'Its mother need not consider the possibility of any restriction'? — Abaye replied: Pentateuchally she need not consider the possibility of any restriction, but it is Rabbinically that she must take into consideration the possibility [that it might have constituted a valid birth]. But did he  not quote a Scriptural text?  — The restriction is Rabbinical, and the Scriptural text is a mere prop. MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN ABORTED A TUMTUM OR AN ANDROGINOS,  SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN HER UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR BOTH A MALE  AND A FEMALE,  IF SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A TUMTUM AND A MALE, OR TO AN ANDROGINOS AND A MALE, SHE MUST ALSO CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR BOTH A MALE  AND A FEMALE.  IF SHE HAVE A TUMTUM AND A FEMALE OR AN ANDROGINOS AND A FEMALE, SHE NEED CONTINUE [IN UNCLEANNESS AS] FOR A FEMALE ONLY.  IF THE EMBRYO ISSUED IN PIECES  OR IN A REVERSED POSITION  IT IS DEEMED BORN AS SOON AS ITS GREATER PART ISSUED FORTH. IF IT CAME FORTH IN THE NORMAL WAY [IT IS NOT DEEMED BORN] UNTIL THE GREATER PART OF ITS HEAD ISSUED FORTH. AND WHAT IS MEANT [BY THE ISSUE OF] THE 'GREATER PART OF ITS HEAD'? THE ISSUE  OF ITS FOREHEAD. GEMARA. Now that it has been laid down that for a TUMTUM alone or for an ANDROGINOS alone SHE MUST CONTINUE [IN HER UNCLEANNESS AND CLEANNESS AS] FOR BOTH A MALE AND A FEMALE, why should it again be necessary [to state that the same law applies where she gave birth to] A TUMTUM AND A MALE OR TO AN ANDROGINOS AND A MALE? — This was necessary: As it might have been suggested that since R. Isaac had stated, 'If the woman emits her semen first she bears a male and if the man emits his first she bears a female',  it should be assumed that since the one is a male the other  also is a male, hence we were informed [that no such assumption is made, since] it might equally be assumed that both  emitted their semen simultaneously, the one resulting in a male and the other in a female. R. Nahman citing Rab ruled: If a tumtum or an androginos observed a white,  or a red  discharge he  does not incur the obligation of an offering for entering the Sanctuary  nor is terumah  to be burnt on his account.  If he  observed a simultaneous discharge of white and red,  he incurs indeed no obligation of an offering for entering the Sanctuary  but terumah  must be burnt on his account;  for  it is said, Both male and female