Topic Study

Abortion
  • Torah (T): Shemot (Exodus) 21:22-25
  • Prophets (P): Hosea 13:16
  • Writings (W): Job 10:8-19
  • Apostolic (A): Luke 1:23-44

RELATED SCRIPTURES

  • Genesis 1:26-28
  • Genesis 2:7, 21-23
  • 1 Corinthians 11:8-12
  • Genesis 3:16
  • Genesis 9:1-7
  • Leviticus 17:11
  • Isaiah 49:15-16
  • Jeremiah 1:5
  • Psalms 139:13-17
  • 2 Kings 8:12
  • Amos 1:13
  • Leviticus 22:27-28

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

  • Didache Chapter 2
  • Epistle of Barnabas 19:5
  • A Sectarian Manifesto 4QMMT
  • Mishna Oholot 7:4-6
  • Yevamot 69b:1-11
  • Mishnah Hullin 4:2-7

Note: Topic Studies are based on the Torah, Prophets, and Writings of the Hebrew Bible.

Tanakh is an acronym of the first Hebrew letter of each of the Hebrew Bible’s three traditional subdivisions: Torah (‘Teaching’ also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi’im (‘Prophets’) and Khetuvim (‘Writings’).

The letter inside the parenthesis represents which area the Related or Additional rEADINGS relate to. (T) means the verse relates to that topic’s Torah reading. (P) means the verse relates to that topic’s Prophets reading. (W) means the verse relates to that topic’s Writings portion.

Torah (T)

Exodus 21:22-25

21:22 If men fight and hurt a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely, and yet no harm follows, he shall be surely fined as much as the woman’s husband demands and he shall give through the judges. 23 But if any harm follows, then you must take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burning for burning, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise.

Prophets (P)

Hosea 13:16

13:16 Samaria will bear her guilt, for she has rebelled against her Elohim. They will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women will be ripped open.

Writings (W)

Job 10:8-19

10:8 “ ‘Your hands have framed me and fashioned me altogether, yet you destroy me. 9 Remember, I beg you, that you have fashioned me as clay. Will you bring me into dust again? 10 Haven’t you poured me out like milk, and curdled me like cheese? 11 You have clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. 12 You have granted me life and loving kindness. Your inspection has preserved my spirit. 13 Yet you hid these things in your heart. I know that this is with you: 14 if I sin, then you mark me. You will not acquit me from my iniquity. 15 If I am wicked, woe to me. If I am righteous, I still will not lift up my head, being filled with disgrace, and conscious of my affliction. 16 If my head is held high, you hunt me like a lion. Again you show yourself powerful to me. 17 You renew your witnesses against me, and increase your indignation on me. Changes and warfare are with me. 18 “ ‘Why, then, have you brought me out of the womb? I wish I had breathed my last, and no eye had seen me. 19 I should have been as though I had not been. I should have been carried from the belly to the grave.

Apostolic (A)

Luke 1:23-44

1:23 When the days of his (Zechariah’s) service were fulfilled, he departed to his house. 24 After these days Elisheva his wife conceived, and she hid herself five new moons, saying, 25 “Thus has the Lord done to me in the days in which he looked at me, to take away my reproach among men.” 26 Now in the sixth new moon, the angel Gabriel was sent from Elohim to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of David’s house. The virgin’s name was Miriam. 28 Having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, you highly favored one! The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women!” 29 But when she saw him, she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered what kind of salutation this might be. 30 The angel said to her, “Don’t be afraid, Miriam, for you have found favor with Elohim. 31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and shall name him ‘Yeshua.’ 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord Elohim will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever. There will be no end to his Reign.” 34 Miriam said to the angel, “How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore also the holy one who is born from you will be called the Son of Elohim. 36 Behold, Elisheva your relative also has conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth new moon with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing spoken by Elohim is impossible.” 38 Miriam said, “Behold, the servant of the Lord; let it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her. 39 Miriam arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Judah, 40 and entered into the house of Zechariah and greeted Elisheva. 41 When Elisheva heard Miriam’s greeting, the baby leaped in her belly; and Elisheva was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 She called out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your belly! 43 Why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the voice of your greeting came into my ears, the baby leaped in my belly for joy!

Related Scriptures

Genesis 1:26-28

26 Elohim said, “Let’s make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the livestock, [and over all the wild animals of the land],(syr) and over every creeping thing that creeps on the land.” 27 Elohim created man in his own image. In Elohim’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 Elohim blessed them, [saying],(LXX) “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the land, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the heavens, and over the livestock, [and over all the wild animals of the land],(syr) [and over all the creatures that crawl](LXX) on the land.”

Genesis 2:7, 21-23

2:7 [Elohim](LXX) formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul…18 [Elohim](LXX) said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make him a helper [as his opposite].”(MTT) …21 [Elohim](LXX) caused the man to fall into a trance. As the man slept, he took one from his side, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 [Elohim](LXX) made a woman from the side which he had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. She will be called ‘woman,’ because she was taken out of Man.”

1 Corinthians 11:8-12

11:8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man; 9 for man wasn’t created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this cause the woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman independent of the man, nor the man independent of the woman, in the Lord. 12 For as wife came from man, so a man also comes through a woman; but all things are from Elohim.

Genesis 3:16

3:16 To the woman he said, “I will make a great increase of your hardship and your pregnancy, in distressing pain you will bring forth sons. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Genesis 9:1-7

9:1 Elohim blessed Noaḥ̣ and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the land. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you will be on every [wild](LXX) animal of the land, [and on all livestock of the land,](LXX) and on every bird of the heavens. Everything that moves along the ground, and all the fish of the sea, are delivered into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives will be food for you. As I gave you the green herb, I have given everything to you. 4 But flesh with its life, that is, its blood, you shall not eat. 5 I will surely seek accounting for your life’s blood. At the hand of every animal I will seek it. At the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother, I will seek the soul of man. 6 Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood will be shed by man, for Elohim made man in his own image. 7 Be fruitful and multiply. Increase abundantly in the land, and multiply in it [and have dominion over it]”(LXX)(mss)

Leviticus 17:11

17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood. I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life.

Why You Can’t Have a Period While Pregnant

A true period is blood loss that occurs at the end of a menstrual cycle as a result of an egg not being fertilized by sperm. When an egg goes unfertilized, hormones—the ones that control the release of the egg into your fallopian tubes and cause your womb lining to thicken—drop in levels at the end of the month. Your womb lining then disintegrates and is shed in what we commonly refer to as a period. If you’re pregnant, an egg has already been fertilized and is growing as an embryo within the walls of your uterus. Since your womb lining is not being discarded at the end of each months, you no longer have a period. This is why one of the early signs of pregnancy is a missed period.

Isaiah 49:15-16

49:15 “Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her belly? Yes, these may forget, yet I will not forget you! 16 Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands. Your walls are continually before me.

Jeremiah 1:5

1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I sanctified you. I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Psalms 139:13-17

139:13 For you formed my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother’s belly. 14 I will give thanks to you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful. My soul knows that very well. 15 My frame wasn’t hidden from you, when I was made in secret, woven together in the depths of the land. 16 Your eyes saw my body. In your book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there were none of them. 17 How precious to me are your thoughts, Elohim! How vast is their sum!

2 Kings 8:12

8:12 Hazael said, “Why do you weep, my lord?” He answered, “Because I know the evil that you will do to the sons of Israel. You will set their strongholds on fire, and you will kill their young men with the sword, and will dash their little ones in pieces, and rip up their pregnant women.”

Amos 1:13

1:13 YHWH says: “For three transgressions of the sons of Ammon, yes, for four, I will not turn away its punishment, because they have ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead, that they may enlarge their border.

Leviticus 22:27-28

22:27 “When a bull, a sheep, or a goat is born, it shall remain seven days with its mother. From the eighth day on it shall be accepted for the offering of an offering made by fire to YHWH. 28 Whether it is an ox or ram, you shall not kill him and his son in one day.

Additional Resources​

Didache Chapter 2

Also known as, “The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations,” διδαχή didache (G1322) literally means “teaching or that which is taught.” The Didache is a brief anonymous work written in Koine Greek, dated by modern scholars to the first or second century AD. Some scholars feel it was written as early as 50 AD and may even contain material older than many of Paul’s epistles and the Gospel of John.

Read the full Didache at thecord.life/didache

And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, (cf. Exodus 20:13-14) you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, (cf. Exodus 20:15) you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, (cf. Exodus 20:17) you shall not forswear yourself, (cf. Matthew 5:34) you shall not bear false witness, (cf. Exodus 20:16) you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued; for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.

Epistle of Barnabas 19:5

The Epistle of Barnabas, also known as Pseudo-Barnabas, is a Greek epistle written between AD 70 and 132. The complete text is preserved in the 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus, where it appears immediately after the Apostolic Writings and before the Shepherd of Hermas. For several centuries it was one of the “antilegomena” (“disputed”) writings that some Christians looked on as sacred scripture, while others excluded them. The epistle was written to dissuade its readers from being influenced by Christian Judaism or even to consider the Jews as sharing in Elohim’s covenant. It was written in Greek and currently contains 21 brief chapters, preserved complete in the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus where it appears at the end of the New Testament. The epistle goes farther in its anti-Jewish stance than earlier Christian works, by arguing that Elohim’s covenant with Abraham and Moses was never established with the Jewish people as a whole, due to their sins. It was ultimately omitted from the New Testament canon, although and it was cited by several early Church Fathers as having scriptural authority.

You shall love your neighbor more than your own soul. You shall not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shall you destroy it after it is born. You shall not withdraw your hand from your son, or from your daughter, but from their infancy you shall teach them the fear of the Lord.

A Sectarian Manifesto 4QMMT

4QMMT, also known as MMT, or the Halakhic Letter, is a reconstructed text from manuscripts that were part of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered at Qumran in the Judean desert. The manuscripts that were used to reconstruct 4QMMT were found in Cave 4 at Qumran between the years 1953 and 1959. They were kept at the Palestinian Archaeological Museum, now known as the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem. The sigla “4QMMT” designates manuscripts found in Cave 4 at Qumran, so the manuscripts are designated “4Qxxx” The “MMT” is the title of the document as provided by its editors. The document was provisionally designated “4QMishnique” (Mishnah) by Józef Milik. The designation at final publication was “4QMMT” (Miqsat Ma’ase ha-Torah, Hebrew for “Some Precepts of the Torah” or “Some Rulings Pertaining to the Torah”).

Ruling on the slaughter of pregnant animals (Lev. 22:27-28).
[Concerning pregnant animals,] we have deter[mined that one must not slaughter] the mother and the fetus on the same day [. . .]

Ruling on the eating of a fetus (Lev. 22:27-28; Mishnah Hullin 4:1-5).
[Concerning] one who eats [of the fetus, w]e have determined that a person might eat the fetus [which is found in the womb of its mother after it has been slaughtered as well. You know that thi]s is correct, for the matter is written concerning the pregnant animal.

The above excerpts are from Wise, Michael Owen, et al. The Dead Sea Scrolls: a New Translation. HarperSanFrancisco, 2005

Matthew 16:5-12

16:5 He left them and departed. 5 The disciples came to the other side and had forgotten to take bread. 6 Yeshua said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 7 They reasoned among themselves, saying, “We brought no bread.” 8 Yeshua, perceiving it, said, “Why do you reason among yourselves, you of little faith, because you have brought no bread? 9 Don’t you yet perceive or remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you took up, 10 or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you took up? 11 How is it that you don’t perceive that I didn’t speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” 12 Then they understood that he didn’t tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The Pharisees were a Jewish social movement and a school of thought in the Levant (Eastern Mediterranean region of Western Asia) during the time of Second Temple Judaism. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, Pharisaic beliefs became the foundational, liturgical, and ritualistic basis for Rabbinic Judaism.

The Mishna is a collection of legal opinions which became the foundation document of Rabbinic Judaism. Compiled circa 200 AD in Palestine by the patriarch Judah haNasi and his school, the Mishnah comprises the legal statements of the tannaim, i.e. rabbis, and the sages they considered to be their forebears, from Hellenistic times (323 B.C.) to the early 3rd century AD.

The Mishnah was redacted by Judah ha-Nasi at the beginning of the 3rd century A.D.[4] in a time when, according to the Talmud, the persecution of the Jews and the passage of time raised the possibility that the details of the oral traditions of the Pharisees from the Second Temple period (516 B.C.E – 70 A.D.) would be forgotten. Most of the Mishnah is written in Mishnaic Hebrew, but some parts are in Aramaic.

The Mishnah consists of six orders (sedarim, singular seder סדר), each containing 7–12 tractates (masechtot, singular masechet מסכת; lit. “web”), 63 in total, and further subdivided into chapters and paragraphs. The word Mishnah can also indicate a single paragraph of the work, i.e. the smallest unit of structure in the Mishnah. For this reason the whole work is sometimes referred to in the plural form, Mishnayot.

Mishna Oholot 7:4-6

ʾOhaloth (אוהלות, literally “Tents”) is the second tractate of the Order of Tohorot in the Mishnah. It consists of eighteen chapters, which discuss the ritual impurity of corpses, and the peculiar quality they have to make all objects in the same tent-like structure impure as well. According to a Jewish legend, this is one of the most important tractates in the Talmud: King David is said to have asked of Elohim that reading the Book of Psalms be considered the equivalent of studying the tractate of Oholot. Nevertheless, there is no Gemara for Oholot in either the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmud. Some suggest that the name of this tractate should be pronounced Ahilot (Ah-he-lote) which means “coverings” (the plural gerund) instead of Oholot which means “tents.” This is because the discussion does not only focus on the transfer of tumah through tents but through other coverings as well.

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא מַקְשָׁה לֵילֵד וְהוֹצִיאוּהָ מִבַּיִת לְבַיִת, הָרִאשׁוֹן טָמֵא בְסָפֵק, וְהַשֵּׁנִי בְּוַדָּאי. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא נִטֶּלֶת בַּגַּפַּיִם. אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה מְהַלֶּכֶת, הָרִאשׁוֹן טָהוֹר, שֶׁמִּשֶּׁנִּפְתַּח הַקֶּבֶר אֵין פְּנַאי לְהַלֵּךְ. אֵין לַנְּפָלִים פְּתִיחַת הַקֶּבֶר, עַד שֶׁיַּעְגִּילוּ רֹאשׁ כְּפִיקָה

7:4 If a woman was having great difficulty giving birth and they carried her out from one house to another, the first house is doubtfully unclean and the second is certainly unclean. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When she is carried out [supported] by the armpits, but if she was able to walk, the first house remains clean, for after the “tomb” has been opened there is no possibility of walking, For stillborn children are not [deemed to have] opened the “tomb” until they present a head rounded like a spindle-knob.

יָצָא הָרִאשׁוֹן מֵת וְהַשֵּׁנִי חַי, טָהוֹר. הָרִאשׁוֹן חַי וְהַשֵּׁנִי מֵת, טָמֵא. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, בְּשָׁפִיר אֶחָד, טָמֵא. בִּשְׁנֵי שְׁפִירִים, טָהוֹר

7:5 If [at the birth of twins] the first came out dead and the second came out alive, the [live one] is clean. If the first was alive and the second dead, the [live child] is unclean. Rabbi Meir says: if they were in one sac, [the live child] is unclean, but if there were two sacs, it remains clean.

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא מַקְשָׁה לֵילֵד, מְחַתְּכִין אֶת הַוָּלָד בְּמֵעֶיהָ וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ אֵבָרִים אֵבָרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחַיֶּיהָ קוֹדְמִין לְחַיָּיו. יָצָא רֻבּוֹ, אֵין נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ, שֶׁאֵין דּוֹחִין נֶפֶשׁ מִפְּנֵי נָפֶשׁ

7:6 If a woman is having trouble giving birth, they cut up the child in her womb and brings it forth limb by limb, because her life comes before the life of [the child]. But if the greater part has come out, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person’s life for that of another.

Yevamot 69b:1-11

Yevamot is a tractate of the Talmud that deals with, among other concepts, the laws of Yibbum, and, briefly, with conversion to Judaism. This tractate is the first in the order of Nashim. Yevamot, along with Eruvin and Niddah, is considered one of the three most difficult tractates in the Babylonian Talmud.

עִיבְּרָה — לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. נֶחְתַּךְ הָעוּבָּר בְּמֵעֶיהָ — תֹּאכַל. הָיָה כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּא עַל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל — לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה, עִיבְּרָה — לֹא תֹּאכַל. יָלְדָה — תֹּאכַל. נִמְצָא כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן גָּדוֹל מִשֶּׁל אָב

69b:1 If he impregnated her, she may not partake of teruma, as she is carrying an Israelite fetus. If the fetus was cut in her womb, i.e., she miscarried, she may partake of teruma. If the man was a priest who engaged in intercourse with an Israelite woman, she may not partake of teruma. If he impregnated her, she still may not partake of teruma, as a fetus does not enable its mother to partake. If she gave birth she may partake due to her child, a priest. It is therefore found in this case that the power of the son is greater than that of the father, as the father of this child does not enable the woman to partake of teruma, but the son does.

הָעֶבֶד פּוֹסֵל מִשּׁוּם בִּיאָה, וְאֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל מִשּׁוּם זֶרַע. כֵּיצַד? בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן, בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בֵּן, וְהָלַךְ הַבֵּן וְנִכְבַּשׁ עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בֵּן — הֲרֵי זֶה עֶבֶד. הָיְתָה אֵם אָבִיו בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן — לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל — תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה

69b:2 A slave disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma due to his engaging in intercourse with her, and he does not disqualify a woman because he is her seed. How so? In what case would a slave theoretically disqualify a woman because he is her seed? If an Israelite woman was married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite; and she bore him a son; and the son went and pressed himself onto a maidservant, an epithet for intercourse used in this context due to the shame involved in having intercourse with a maidservant; and she bore him a son, then this son is a slave. If the latter’s father’s mother was an Israelite who was married to a priest, and her husband died, she may not partake of teruma due to her grandson, as he is not a priest but a slave. On the other hand, if she was the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, and he died, leaving only this grandson, she may partake of teruma, as the grandson is not considered his father’s seed.

מַמְזֵר פּוֹסֵל וּמַאֲכִיל. כֵּיצַד? בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן, וּבַת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בַּת, וְהָלְכָה הַבַּת וְנִישֵּׂאת לְעֶבֶד אוֹ לְגוֹי וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בֵּן — הֲרֵי זֶה מַמְזֵר. הָיְתָה אֵם אִמּוֹ בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן — תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל — לֹא תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה.

69b:3 A mamzer disqualifies a woman from partaking of teruma, and he also enables a woman to partake of teruma. How so? If an Israelite woman was married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a slave or a gentile and bore him a son, this son is a mamzer. If his mother’s mother was an Israelite woman married to a priest, even if her husband died, she may partake of teruma, as she has surviving seed from a priest. Conversely, if she is the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite, she may not partake of teruma, even after her Israelite husband’s death, as she has seed from him.

כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, פְּעָמִים שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסֵל. כֵּיצַד? בַּת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בַּת, וְהָלְכָה הַבַּת וְנִיסֵּת לַכֹּהֵן, וְיָלְדָה הֵימֶנּוּ בֵּן — הֲרֵי זֶה רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל עוֹמֵד וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. מַאֲכִיל אֶת אִמּוֹ, וּפוֹסֵל אֵם אִמּוֹ. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: לֹא כִּבְנִי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסְלֵנִי מִן הַתְּרוּמָה

69b:4 Even with regard to a High Priest, sometimes he disqualifies his grandmother from partaking of teruma. How so? If the daughter of a priest was married to an Israelite, and she bore him a daughter, and the daughter went and married a priest and bore him a son, this son is fit to be a High Priest, who stands and serves on the altar. This son enables his mother to partake of teruma, as he is a priest. And yet, he disqualifies his mother’s mother from partaking of teruma, as he is her seed from her Israelite husband. This grandmother can say in disapproval: Let there not be many like my daughter’s son, the High Priest, as he disqualifies me from partaking of teruma.

גְּמָ׳ תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנָּשְׂאוּ נָשִׁים, וּמֵתוּ נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן — פְּטוּרוֹת מִן הַחֲלִיצָה וּמִן הַיִּיבּוּם

The Gemara (from the Semitic root ג-מ-ר gamar, to finish or complete) is the component of the Talmud comprising rabbinical analysis of and commentary on the Mishnah. At first, Gemara was only spoken of in oral terms and was forbidden to be written down, however after the Mishnah was published by Judah the Prince (c. 200 A.D.), the work was studied exhaustively by generation after generation of rabbis in Babylonia and the Land of Israel. Their discussions were written down in a series of books that became the Gemara, which when combined with the Mishnah constituted the Talmud. The Mishnah or the Mishna is the first major written collection of the Jewish oral traditions which is known as the Oral Torah. It is also the first major work of rabbinic literature.

Gemara: We already learned that the marriage of an imbecile is invalid, as the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an imbecile and a minor boy who married women and died, their wives are exempt from ḥalitza and from levirate marriage.

כֵּיצַד? הָיָה יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבָּא עַל בַּת כֹּהֵן — תֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה, עִיבְּרָה — לֹא תֹּאכַל. כֵּיוָן דְּעִיבְּרָה לֹא תֹּאכַל? לֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא עִיבְּרָה! מִי לָא תְּנַן: מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתָן שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, שֶׁמָּא מְעוּבָּרוֹת הֵן?

69b:6 It is stated in the mishna: How so? If an Israelite engaged in extramarital intercourse with the daughter of a priest, she may partake of teruma. If he impregnated her, she may not partake of teruma. The Gemara asks: Since if he impregnated her she may not partake, let us be concerned in any case of intercourse between an Israelite and the daughter of a priest lest he impregnated her, thereby rendering it prohibited for her to partake of teruma. Didn’t we learn in a mishna that if two men betrothed two women, and then at the time that they entered the wedding canopy, they accidently switched wives, and engaged in relations with each other’s wives that night, in this case, after the accident is discovered, the court removes the wives from their husbands for three month, lest they are pregnant from the men they presumed to be their husbands and the fetus is therefore a mamzer, although they engaged in intercourse only once (33b)?

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: לְיוּחֲסִין חָשְׁשׁוּ, לִתְרוּמָה לֹא חָשְׁשׁוּ. וְלִתְרוּמָה לֹא חָשְׁשׁוּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּיךְ שָׁעָה אַחַת קוֹדֶם לְמִיתָתִי״ — אֲסוּרָה לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה מִיָּד!

69b:7 The Gemara answers that Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said: About lineage the Sages were concerned, and they therefore decreed a three-month separation of the husbands and wives, to prevent the possibility of a child being of uncertain lineage. However, about the prohibition against a non-priest eating teruma they were not concerned. The Gemara asks: And for teruma were they not concerned? Isn’t it taught in a baraita that if a husband says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce one hour before my death, if she is an Israelite woman married to a priest it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma immediately, as the Sages were concerned that her husband might die within the hour?

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: בְּנִישּׂוּאִין חָשְׁשׁוּ, בִּזְנוּת לֹא חָשְׁשׁוּ

69b:8 Rather, Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said: About impregnation through an act of marriage they were concerned, but about impregnation through licentious intercourse they were not concerned, as the woman generally takes precautions to ensure that she will not become pregnant.

וּבְנִישּׂוּאִין מִי חָשְׁשׁוּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וָמֵת — טוֹבֶלֶת, וְאוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה לְעָרֵב!

69b:9 The Gemara asks: And about marriage were they concerned? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: In the case of the daughter of a priest who married an Israelite and her husband died on that same day, she immerses to purify herself, as she is ritually impure due to their intercourse, and she may partake of teruma that same evening? Evidently, the Sages were not concerned that she became pregnant from the initial act of intercourse, even that of marriage.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: טוֹבֶלֶת וְאוֹכֶלֶת עַד אַרְבָּעִים, דְּאִי לָא מִיעַבְּרָא — הָא לָא מִיעַבְּרָא, וְאִי מִיעַבְּרָא — עַד אַרְבָּעִים מַיָּא בְּעָלְמָא הִיא

69b:10 Rav Ḥisda said: She immerses and partakes of teruma only until forty days after her husband’s death, when there is still no reason for concern, as if she is not pregnant then she is not pregnant. And if she is pregnant, until forty days from conception the fetus is merely water. It is not yet considered a living being, and therefore it does not disqualify its mother from partaking of teruma.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הוּכַּר עוּבָּרָהּ בְּמֵעֶיהָ — תְּהֵא מְקוּלְקֶלֶת לְמַפְרֵעַ. מַאי מְקוּלְקֶלֶת — עַד אַרְבָּעִים

69b:11 Abaye said to him: If so, say the latter clause of the baraita: Once her fetus in her womb is noticeable, she is ruined retroactively. Her prior consumption of teruma is retroactively prohibited. Evidently, pregnancy immediately disqualifies her from partaking of teruma. Therefore, the reason that she may partake of teruma immediately after her husband’s death is that the Sages were not concerned that she became pregnant. Rav Ḥisda responded: What is the period in which she is retroactively ruined? It is from the moment the fetus is noticeable and back in time until forty days from the beginning of her pregnancy. During the first forty days of the pregnancy, she is not retroactively ruined, as the fetus is not yet considered a living being.

Mishnah Hullin 4:2-7

Mishnah Chullin (lit: “Ordinary,” referring to animal and birds consumed in non-consecrated contexts) was composed in Talmudic Israel (c.190 – c.230 AD) and is the third tractate in Seder Kodashim (“Order of holy”). Its twelve chapters discuss laws related to non-sacred consumption of meat, such as ritual slaughter of non-consecrated animals and birds, kosher and non-kosher living beings, the obligation to cover the blood of slaughtered animals, and the prohibitions of mixing meat and dairy products and of slaughtering an animal and its seed on the same day. The tractate’s last chapter discusses the obligation to send away a mother bird when taking her young or eggs (shiluach hakein).

הַמְבַכֶּרֶת הַמַּקְשָׁה לֵילֵד, מְחַתֵּךְ אֵבָר אֵבָר וּמַשְׁלִיךְ לַכְּלָבִים. יָצָא רֻבּוֹ, הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר, וְנִפְטְרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה

4:2 Upon its birth, the firstborn male seed of a domesticated animal is automatically consecrated with firstborn status, and it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. Furthermore, if it dies, it may not be discarded, but must be buried. If an animal that was giving birth to a firstborn male was encountering difficulty giving birth, and in order to alleviate the difficulty one wishes to terminate the birth, he may cut up the fetus limb by limb and cast it to the dogs. Since the fetus was not born, it is non-sacred and does not require burial. If a majority of the fetus had already emerged, it is considered to have been born and is therefore consecrated; consequently, if one cut it up it must be buried, and the mother animal is exempted from having firstborn status conferred on any future seed.

בְּהֵמָה שֶׁמֵּת עֻבָּרָהּ בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ וְהוֹשִׁיט הָרוֹעֶה אֶת יָדוֹ וְנָגַע בּוֹ, בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה, טָהוֹר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, בִּטְמֵאָה, טָמֵא, וּבִטְהוֹרָה, טָהוֹר. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמֵּת וְלָדָהּ בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ וּפָשְׁטָה חַיָּה אֶת יָדָהּ וְנָגְעָה בוֹ, הַחַיָּה טְמֵאָה טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה טְהוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא הַוָּלָד

4:3 With regard to an animal whose fetus died in its womb and the shepherd reached his hand into the womb and touched the fetus, both in the case of a non-kosher animal and in the case of a kosher animal the fetus does not have the status of an animal carcass that imparts ritual impurity, and the shepherd remains ritually pure. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: In the case of a non-kosher animal it is impure, and in the case of a kosher animal it is pure. With regard to a woman whose fetus died in her womb and the midwife extended her hand into the womb and touched the fetus, the midwife is thereby rendered impure with the seven-day impurity imparted by a corpse, and the woman remains ritually pure until the seed emerges from the womb.

בְּהֵמָה הַמַּקְשָׁה לֵילֵד, וְהוֹצִיא עֻבָּר אֶת יָדוֹ וַחֲתָכָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת אִמּוֹ, הַבָּשָׂר טָהוֹר. שָׁחַט אֶת אִמּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲתָכָהּ, הַבָּשָׂר מַגַּע נְבֵלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מַגַּע טְרֵפָה שְׁחוּטָה. מַה מָּצִינוּ בַטְּרֵפָה שֶׁשְּׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ, אַף שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה תְּטַהֵר אֶת הָאֵבָר. אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי מֵאִיר, לֹא, אִם טִהֲרָה שְׁחִיטַת טְרֵפָה אוֹתָהּ, דָּבָר שֶׁגּוּפָהּ, תְּטַהֵר אֶת הָאֵבָר, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ גוּפָהּ. מִנַּיִן לַטְּרֵפָה שֶׁשְּׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ. בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֲסוּרָה בַאֲכִילָה, אַף טְרֵפָה אֲסוּרָה בַאֲכִילָה. מַה בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֵין שְׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ, אַף טְרֵפָה לֹא תְטַהֲרֶנָּה שְׁחִיטָתָהּ. לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכֹּשֶׁר, תֹּאמַר בִּטְרֵפָה שֶׁהָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכֹּשֶׁר. טֹל לְךָ מַה שֶּׁהֵבֵאתָ, הֲרֵי שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה טְרֵפָה מִן הַבֶּטֶן מִנַּיִן. לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁכֵּן אֵין בְּמִינָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, תֹּאמַר בִּטְרֵפָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּמִינָהּ שְׁחִיטָה. בֶּן שְׁמֹנָה חַי, אֵין שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינוֹ שְׁחִיטָה

4:4 If an animal was encountering difficulty giving birth and as a result the fetus extended its foreleg outside the mother’s womb, and someone severed it and afterward slaughtered the mother animal, the flesh of the fetus is ritually pure. If one first slaughtered the mother animal and afterward severed the foreleg, the flesh of both the mother animal and the fetus are ritually impure due to having been in contact with a carcass. Since the foreleg was not permitted to be consumed through the act of slaughtering, it is regarded as a carcass with the associated ritual impurity. The rest of the flesh, which was permitted to be consumed by the slaughter, was in contact with it and so was rendered ritually impure from it; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The flesh has the ritual impurity of having been in contact with a tereifa that was slaughtered, as the limb is regarded as a tereifa that was slaughtered. By Torah law, although it is prohibited to consume it, it does not impart ritual impurity. Nevertheless, the Sages decreed that a tereifa that was slaughtered, as well as anything that comes in contact with it, is regarded as ritually impure to the extent that it disqualifies sacrificial foods that come in contact with it. The Rabbis explain the rationale behind their opinion: Just as we found in the case of a tereifa that its slaughter renders it ritually pure according to Torah law, i.e., ritual slaughter prevents it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass despite not rendering the animal permitted for consumption, so too, the slaughter of the mother animal should render the limb of its fetus that left the womb ritually pure, despite the fact that its consumption is prohibited. Rabbi Meir said to them: No, if the slaughter of a tereifa renders the body of the animal ritually pure, it is because the slaughter is performed on something that is part of its body, i.e., its throat. Does it necessarily follow that you should also render the limb that left the womb pure, given that it is something that is not part of the mother’s body? Certainly not. The mishna asks: From where is it derived with regard to a tereifa that its slaughter renders it ritually pure, i.e., prevents it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass? The mishna notes there is a reason to say the slaughter should not render it pure, as one can compare a tereifa with a non-kosher animal: A non-kosher animal is prohibited for consumption; so too, a tereifa is prohibited for consumption. Therefore, conclude: Just as with regard to a non-kosher animal, its slaughter does not render it ritually pure, so too with regard to a tereifa, its slaughter should not render it ritually pure. The mishna questions the comparison: No, if you said that slaughtering cannot prevent an animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass in the case of a non-kosher animal, which is distinct in that it did not have a period of potential fitness when slaughtering it could have rendered its consumption permitted, does it necessarily follow that you should also say this in the case of a tereifa, which did have a period of potential fitness? Perhaps, since the animal had a period of potential fitness its slaughter remains effective in preventing it from having the ritual impurity of a carcass. The mishna rejects this distinction: Take back to yourself this claim that you brought, as it is insufficient. What about a case where an animal was born as a tereifa from the womb, and so it never had a period of potential fitness? For such a case, from where is it derived that its slaughter renders it ritually pure? The mishna reformulates the distinction: No, if you say that slaughtering cannot prevent a prohibited animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass with regard to a non-kosher animal, which is distinct in that there are no animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering, as the Torah states the concept of slaughtering only with regard to kosher animals, does it necessarily follow that you should also say this with regard to a tereifa kosher animal, given that there are other animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering, i.e., kosher animals that are not tereifa? Perhaps, since the concept of slaughtering is relevant to that kind of animal it can serve to prevent the animal from having the ritual impurity of a carcass even if the slaughter cannot render it permitted for consumption. The mishna notes: Based on this reasoning, one must conclude that with regard to an eight-month-old fetus that was born alive, slaughter does not render it ritually pure, as there are no animals of its kind that are permitted through slaughtering. The Torah applies the concept of slaughter only with regard to animals that were born full term.

הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וּמָצָא בָהּ בֶּן שְׁמֹנָה חַי אוֹ מֵת, אוֹ בֶן תִּשְׁעָה מֵת, קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ. מָצָא בֶן תִּשְׁעָה חַי, טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה, וְחַיָּב בְּאוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁזוּרִי אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ בֶן שְׁמֹנֶה שָׁנִים וְחוֹרֵשׁ בַּשָּׂדֶה, שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ. קְרָעָהּ וּמָצָא בָהּ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי, טָעוּן שְׁחִיטָה, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחֲטָה אִמּוֹ

4:5 In the case of one who slaughtered an animal and found within it an eight-month-old fetus, i.e., one that was not full term, whether it was alive or dead, or a nine-month-old fetus, i.e., one that was full term, that was dead, that fetus is permitted by virtue of the slaughter of its mother, as it is considered part of its mother. Therefore, its blood is considered part of its mother’s blood and is prohibited, so one must tear the fetus and remove its blood before it may be consumed. If he found within it a live nine-month-old fetus, it requires its own slaughter, as it is considered an independent full-fledged animal, and if one slaughters both the mother and fetus on the same day, one is liable for violating the prohibition against slaughtering an animal itself and its seed on the same day; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Even when the fetus is nine month old, it is still considered part of its mother, and the slaughter of its mother renders it permitted for consumption. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: Even if the fetus emerged alive and is now five years old and plowing in the field, the earlier slaughter of its mother rendered it permitted and it does not require slaughter before it is eaten. But if one tore an animal, i.e., he killed it without slaughtering it, and inside he found a live nine-month-old fetus, everyone agrees that the fetus requires its own slaughter because its mother was not slaughtered.

בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ רַגְלֶיהָ מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה, כְּשֵׁרָה. מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה, פְּסוּלָה. וְכֵן שֶׁנִּטַּל צֹמֶת הַגִּידִין. נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם, אִם רֹב הַבָּשָׂר קַיָּם, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ. וְאִם לָאו, אֵין שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ:

4:6 With regard to an animal whose hind legs were severed, if they were severed from the leg joint and below, the animal is kosher; from the leg joint and above, the animal is thereby rendered a tereifa and is not kosher. And likewise, an animal whose convergence of sinews in the thigh was removed is a tereifa and is not kosher. If the bone of a limb was broken but the limb was not completely severed, and the animal was then slaughtered, if the majority of the flesh surrounding the bone is intact, the slaughter of the animal renders it permitted; but if not, its slaughter does not render it permitted.

הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וּמָצָא בָהּ שִׁלְיָא, נֶפֶשׁ הַיָּפָה תֹּאכְלֶנָּה, וְאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לֹא טֻמְאַת אֳכָלִין וְלֹא טֻמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת. חִשֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ, מְטַמְּאָה טֻמְאַת אֳכָלִין אֲבָל לֹא טֻמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת. שִׁלְיָא שֶׁיָּצְתָה מִקְצָתָהּ, אֲסוּרָה בַאֲכִילָה. סִימַן וָלָד בָּאִשָּׁה, וְסִימַן וָלָד בַּבְּהֵמָה. הַמְבַכֶּרֶת שֶׁהִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא, יַשְׁלִיכֶנָּה לִכְלָבִים. וּבַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין, תִּקָּבֵר. וְאֵין קוֹבְרִין אוֹתָהּ בְּפָרָשַׁת דְּרָכִים, וְאֵין תּוֹלִין אוֹתָהּ בְּאִילָן, מִפְנֵי דַּרְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי

4:7 In the case of one who slaughters an animal and finds a placenta in its womb, one with a hearty soul [nefesh hayafa], i.e., who is not repulsed by it, may eat it, as its consumption was permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother. Nevertheless, since generally speaking, people do not consume such placentas, it is not regarded as food and so it cannot become impure with the ritual impurity of food even were it to come into contact with a source of impurity. And furthermore, it does not impart the ritual impurity of animal carcasses as it was permitted by virtue of the slaughter of the mother. But if one intended to eat it, one thereby elevated it to the status of food, and the placenta becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food if it comes into contact with a source of impurity. But even so, it still does not impart the ritual impurity of animal carcasses. With regard to a placenta, part of which emerged from the womb before the mother was slaughtered, its consumption is prohibited even after the mother animal is slaughtered because the emergence of the placenta is an indication of a fetus in a woman and an indication of a fetus in an animal. Accordingly, there is a concern that the head of the fetus might have emerged in that part of the placenta, thereby rendering the fetus as having been born, a status that precludes it from being permitted by the slaughter of its mother. Since the seed is prohibited, its placenta is likewise prohibited. If an animal that was giving birth to its firstborn expelled a placenta, one may cast it to the dogs, and one does not need to be concerned that the placenta came from a male fetus that has the consecrated status of a firstborn. But in the case of sacrificial animals the placenta must be buried, because it came from a fetus that is assumed to have been sacred. The mishna adds: But one may neither bury it at an intersection, nor may one hang it on a tree, superstitious rites intended to prevent the animal from miscarrying again, due to the prohibition against following the ways of the Amorite, which prohibits Jews from practicing the superstitious rites observed by nations.