Zevachim Chapter 1, Mishnah 3. Until now, we have dealt with cases where a person brings a fixed chatas for various sins. We will now address situations where there is an obligation to bring a chatas even though the person did not commit a sin at all. The first example is a woman after childbirth: a woman who gives birth is called a "mechusares kippurim" - she lacks a certain completeness in her taharah until she brings her korbanos, an olah and a chatas.
The Korbanos of a Woman After Childbirth:
The Olah: If she can afford it - a male sheep; and if she cannot afford it - a bird olah.
The Chatas: Always a bird - a bird chatas.
It emerges that if she cannot afford it, she brings the regular pair of birds: one olah and one chatas. However, if she can afford it, an unusual situation arises where she brings a bird chatas without a bird olah, since she brings a male sheep for the olah.
Three Situations Regarding the Chatas of a Woman After Childbirth:
Sometimes the chatas is brought out of a definite obligation, and then it is eaten.
Sometimes it is brought out of doubt, and then it is not eaten.
And sometimes it is clear that she is not obligated at all, and then she brings no chatas at all.
Corresponding to these three situations, the Mishnah is divided into three parts: our mishnah (Mishnah 3) discusses the definite obligation; the next mishnah (Mishnah 4) discusses a case of doubt, where she brings a chatas but the kohen does not eat it; and Mishnah 5 discusses cases where there is no obligation to bring a korban at all.
You might ask: We do not bring a chatas out of doubt! Indeed, that is the rule, and we will discuss it in the next mishnah. Our mishnah focuses on cases where the woman is definitely obligated to bring a chatas after a miscarriage, because she definitely expelled a fetus - a fully developed fetus - and such a birth obligates her in a korban.
It is worth noting that those who learn the mishnayos in order will find here halachos familiar from Tractate Bechoros, which was learned not long ago. A woman who miscarries a fetus that has the status of a newborn is not only obligated in korbanos, including the chatas, but even the child born to her afterward is not considered a bechor, since the miscarried fetus was the "peter rechem" (the first issue of the womb) and opened her womb. The definitions of when something is considered a peter rechem are identical to the definitions before us, and therefore these mishnayos are very similar to what was learned in Tractate Bechoros.
The opening wording of the mishnah: "Yeish mevi'os korban vene'echal, veyeish mevi'os she'eino ne'echal, veyeish she'einan mevi'os" - There are women who miscarry and are obligated in a chatas, and it is eaten; there are those who are in doubt whether they became obligated in a chatas for their miscarriage, and therefore they bring it but the korban is not eaten; and there are situations where even though she miscarried, there is no obligation for korbanos at all.
"Eilu mevi'os korban vene'echal" - These bring a korban and it is eaten:
"Hamepeles kemin behemah chayah va'of, divrei Rabbi Meir" - According to Rabbi Meir, even if the miscarried fetus does not resemble a human form at all but rather a domestic animal, a wild animal, or a bird, it is considered a newborn and the woman is obligated in a chatas.
Rabbi Meir bases this on the verses at the beginning of the Book of Bereishis. Regarding the creation of animals and birds, it says: "And Hashem God formed out of the earth every wild beast and every bird of the sky" - using the term "formed" (yetzirah). And regarding man, it says: "And Hashem God formed man." By comparing the term "formed," Rabbi Meir learned that even an aborted fetus that resembles an animal or a bird is considered an offspring.
"Vachachamim omrim ad sheyehei bo mitzuras adam" - The Sages disagree and hold that it must look like a human being, and at the very least, its face must resemble a human face and not just an animal face. The phrasing "mitzuras adam," with the extra prefix "mi" (meaning "from" or "some of"), teaches that a little bit is enough - that at least half of the face must resemble a human. The halachah follows the Sages: an aborted fetus that bears no resemblance to a human is not considered an offspring and does not count as opening the womb, and no offerings are brought for it at all.
"Sandal" - A flat piece of flesh that has no protruding limbs. According to one explanation, a "sandal" is meant literally: like the leather strap at the bottom of a shoe, a flat piece. And according to another explanation, "sandal" is a portmanteau of two words - "sanui" (hated) and "dal" (stunted), since the thing is repulsive and unappealing. The sandal is formed when there are two fetuses in the womb and one of them crushes the other.
Even though the sandal is nothing more than a flat, shapeless piece of flesh, it has the halachic status of an offspring, since it could have been viable had its twin in the womb not crushed it. Therefore, its emergence creates an obligation for offerings.
One might ask: A sandal always comes together with another twin, and that twin is the one that creates the obligation for offerings, so what practical difference does the sandal itself make? This is true, but one can envision cases where the twin does not create an obligation. Tosafos bring a far-fetched example: if the woman converted between the birth of the normal baby and the birth of the sandal. And another example can be added: if the live baby was delivered by Cesarean section while the sandal came out as a miscarriage. The point is that the sandal itself certainly creates an obligation for offerings, because it is considered an offspring.
"Shilya" - The amniotic sac inside which the fetus grows in the cavity of its mother's womb. The body does not develop a sac unless there was a fetus inside it. Therefore, even if the fetus itself is not found after the miscarriage - perhaps it dissolved in the body or got lost among the rest - the very existence of the sac testifies with certainty that there was a fetus here. From this we learn that seeing the sac certainly creates an obligation for offerings, and the sin-offering is eaten.
"Shafir merukam" - "Shafir" means a vessel that holds something inside it, just as a "shofar" is a hollow horn, and the "shofar of an egg" mentioned in Tractate Shabbos is the eggshell, which has an outer and an inner part. Here too, the "shafir" is the skin that holds the fetus inside it. And "merukam" means simply what it sounds like - that it was woven together: that inside the skin there is actual formed flesh, as opposed to mere liquid, which we will discuss in a few Mishnahs.
A shafir merukam, containing a small, developing fetus, is considered an offspring, and the woman certainly brings offerings for it. We will also see later that she must be pregnant for at least forty days from conception.
"Vehayotzei mechutach" - A fetus that emerged in pieces. This refers to a case where the fetus could not emerge, such as a breech baby, and they had to cut it inside to take it out. Even though it came out in pieces, since it all emerged and was a complete fetus inside, its status is that of an offspring, and the woman certainly brings offerings.
"Vechen shifchah shehipilah mevias korban vene'echal" - Even if the one who miscarried is a Canaanite maidservant, who is not Jewish, she brings offerings and the sin-offering is eaten. The rule is that a Canaanite slave and a Canaanite maidservant are somewhat like Jews: they are not fully Jewish, but they are obligated in mitzvos like a Jewish woman. A Canaanite slave observes Shabbos and keeps kosher. Furthermore, from the moment they are freed and go to liberty, they automatically become Jewish.
Since the Canaanite maidservant is obligated in mitzvos like any Jewish woman, she is also obligated in offerings. Therefore, if she miscarried - or gave birth to a normal, healthy baby - she brings the sin-offering and the burnt-offering.
And if you ask: What is the novelty here, given that it is a sweeping rule that in all matters a maidservant's obligations are like those of a Jewish woman? However, there was room to think that the obligation applies only to shared mitzvos, those that are "equal for every soul," applying to Jewish men and women alike, such as Shabbos and kashrus. But the offerings of a woman who gives birth are never imposed on a man, since he does not give birth and never brings this sin-offering and burnt-offering; and from here there was room to think that the Canaanite maidservant is also exempt. Our Mishnah teaches that this is not so: the status of a Canaanite maidservant is like that of a Jewish woman in every single respect, including the obligation for a sin-offering and a burnt-offering. And when she brings her sin-offering, the kohanim eat it.
In summary: In this Mishnah we learned that a woman after childbirth lacks atonement and brings an olah and a chatas, and that her chatas is always a bird chatas. We enumerated three situations: a definite obligation where the chatas is eaten, a doubtful obligation where the offering is not eaten, and a situation where there is no obligation at all. We detailed the cases where a miscarriage creates a definite obligation: one who miscarries something resembling a domesticated animal, a wild animal, or a bird according to Rabbi Meir (and according to the Sages, whom the halachah follows, only if it has a human form), a sandal, a placenta, a developed sac, and a fetus that emerges in pieces, as well as a maidservant who miscarried.
In the next Mishnah we will discuss cases where the obligation for a chatas comes due to a doubt, and therefore the offering is sacrificed but is not eaten.