Study Niddah folio 16A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
that she cast an item similar to a non-viable newborn into a pit. Perhaps it was not a non-viable newborn; it might simply have been congealed blood, which does not transmit impurity. Therefore, this is a conflict between uncertainty and uncertainty. It is unclear whether there was anything in the p
The Talmud challenges: But isn’t it taught in the baraita: And a priest came and looked into the pit to ascertain whether it was male or whether it was female? This indicates that the only uncertainty was with regard to its sex; it was certainly a non-viable newborn.
The Talmud answers that this is what the baraita is saying: And a priest came and glanced at the baby to ascertain whether the woman discharged a non-viable newborn, or whether she discharged an amorphous mass. And if you say that she discharged a non-viable newborn, he sought to ascertain whether
And if you wish, say instead that this was not a conflict between certainty and uncertainty; rather, it was between two certainties. Since martens and hyenas are common there, they certainly dragged it away immediately. Consequently, the ruling in this case does not contradict the principle that an
§ The Talmud returns to the issue of a woman’s examination at the projected time of her period. The rabbis asked Rav Naḥman: Does the concern for impurity of women at the projected time of their periods, and in turn the obligation for her to perform an examination at that time, apply by Torah law?