In Kinnim the gemara explains in detail that a woman condition decides her being Isha Yoledes and her responsibly to bring korbnos. What she delivers in not relevant because it could be still born, or even an aborted fetus.
In Nidda R. Shimon says that if the woman delivers a transparent tissue, we assume that the fetus was dissolved and she is considered Isha Yoledes and must follow the law In case of undetermined sex we ask her to observe the stringency of female birth and the stringency of male birth and also a nidda.
At no time we were concerned about the shape and looks of what she delivers. Now the mishna discusses the fish, the snake, etc.. and give ruling. This seems irreverent because we must consider her yoledes any how. Putting the situation with and without blood aside, she did deliver and this is a fact. Besides we all know the development of embryo and fetus takes multiple shapes as the time passes, why would we think that our mothers, wives, and daughters should deliver fish, animal or sheretz. This is not consistent. Please explain.
Abe Murad, Montreal, Canada
1) Actually, in the Mishnah on 24a, Rabbi Shimon is discussing a different question. He says that if one finds a "Shilya" - a placenta - in a house, the house is tahor and a Cohen is permitted to enter, because we assume that the fetus was dissolved and became blood and got mixed in with the blood of the birth. Since the majority of the blood was from the birth, the blood from the fetus is in the minority and therefore the house remains tahor.
2)(a)I think you have been Mekaven, Bs'd, to the pshat of the Rambam, in his commentary on the Mishnah, about the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Chachamim on 21a. Clearly, we do not suspect our womenfolk of giving birth to snakes. However the question is how similar to a human does the fetus have to look like for this to be considered a birth. The Rambam writes that according to R. Meir the fetus is not considered as a person unless its face is entirely that of a human. However the Chachamim maintain that it is sufficient that the face possesses some human features. The Rambam writes that one should not think that it is physically impossible that a woman should give birth to such creatures because many stranger phenomena have been testified upon.
(b) According to this, one can explain that R. Meir maintains that it cannot be considered a birth unless the baby looks human on delivery, whilst according to Chachamim if this is a fetus which could have developed on the course of time - if it would have survived for long enough - into human features, then it is considered as a birth if at least it possesses some human features.
Shavua Tov
Dovid Bloom
1.
(a) The Sugya here (in the third chapter of Nidah) deals with the question of whether the pregnant mother becames Tamei as a result of what she gave birth to. However, there is a Mishnah in Kerisus (7b) which looks almost identical to the Mishnah here in Nidah (21a). The Mishnah in Kerisus discusses the case of a woman who gave birth to a form that looks like an animal or a bird. Rebbi Meir maintains that this is considered a birth while the Chachamim maintain that it is considered a birth only if it looks like a human. The difference between the two Mishnayos is that the ramification in the Mishnah in Kerisus is whether or not she brings a Korban after such a birth. Rebbi Meir maintains that she does bring a Korban for such a birth, and this Korban may be eaten, while the Chachamim maintain that she brings a Korban only if the form that was born looks like a human. In contrast, the Mishnah in Nidah (21a) discusses whether the mother is considered Tamei as a result of such a birth.
(b) We learn from the fact that the Gemara cites the same dispute, both in connection with Tum'ah and in connection with Kinim, that the same definitions apply to both areas. This is stated explicitly by the Rambam (Hilchos Mechusrei Kaparah 1:6), who writes, "Wherever we have said that the mother is Tamei because of the birth she must offer a Korban and the Chatas should be eaten. However, wherever we have said that she is not Tamei from the birth she is also exempt from the Korban."
(c) We learn from the above that it does make a difference what the mother delivered.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom