If a woman miscarried a “sandal” and we assume that it only happens when there is a twin born with it, why are laws mentioned regarding the status of the next born relating to firstborn and whether or not the mother needs to bring a sacrifice fro birth, when anyway, there is another one born? Do we say an afterbirth is always an indication that there is a dead fetus – relevance for impurity of death if there is an afterbirth in the house. There are five things listed that have a minimum size of a handsbreath. Why only five – aren’t there others? What is Rav’s opinion regarding a woman who has an afterbirth not right at the birth but later – do we assume it is a different fetus or not? What is it dependent on? Did Rav change his mind about this and it is possible Rav Yehuda missed shiur that day and didn’t know that? If a woman miscarries something that looks like a raven, do we say that since ravens don’t have afterbirths, it must be there was a fetus? Does it matter if the afterbirth was tied around the raven-like discharge? Is this even possible?
Niddah 26
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Niddah 26
גַּבֵּי בְּכוֹרוֹת, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא?
with regard to firstborns (Bekhorot 46a), which states that the son who is born after a sandal fetus has the status of a firstborn with regard to inheritance but not with regard to the obligation of redemption from a priest. The Gemara asks: For what matter is that halakha relevant? Since the sandal fetus has a twin that is born with it, the subsequent son is in any case exempt from redemption.
לַבָּא אַחֲרָיו — בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה, וְאֵין בְּכוֹר לְכֹהֵן.
The Gemara answers: That halakha is relevant for a case where the sandal fetus’s twin comes out of the womb after it. The mishna teaches that as the sandal fetus was born first, its twin is considered a firstborn with regard to inheritance, but it is not a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest.
סַנְדָּל דִּתְנַן גַּבֵּי כָּרֵיתוֹת, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא?
The Gemara discusses the halakha with regard to a woman who discharged a sandal fetus that we learned in a mishna in tractate Karetot (7b), which states that such a woman brings the offering of a woman who gave birth. The Gemara asks: For what matter is that halakha relevant? In any case that woman is obligated to bring the offering of a woman who gave birth, due to the twin.
שֶׁאִם תֵּלֵד וָלָד דֶּרֶךְ דּוֹפֶן, וְסַנְדָּל דֶּרֶךְ רֶחֶם — דְּמַיְיתָא קׇרְבָּן אַסַּנְדָּל.
The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the mishna to state that if a woman gives birth to a full-fledged offspring by means of caesarean section, and to a sandal fetus in a regular manner through the womb, in such a case she brings an offering for giving birth to the sandal fetus, despite the fact that she does not bring an offering for the full-fledged offspring, as one does not bring an offering for a birth by caesarean section.
וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: יוֹצֵא דֶּרֶךְ דּוֹפֶן וָלָד מְעַלְּיָא הוּא — מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Shimon, who said that an offspring which is delivered by means of caesarean section is considered a full-fledged offspring, and its mother does bring an offering, what is there to say? Why is it necessary for the mishna to state this halakha if the woman must bring an offering regardless of the sandal fetus?
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: שֶׁאִם תֵּלֵד וָלָד בְּגַיּוּתָהּ, וְסַנְדָּל לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירָה — דְּמַיְיתָא קׇרְבָּן אַסַּנְדָּל.
Rabbi Yirmeya says: It is necessary for the mishna to state that if a woman gives birth to the full-fledged offspring while she is a gentile, when the halakhot of a woman after childbirth do not apply to her, and she immediately converts to Judaism and gives birth to the sandal fetus after she converted and became obligated to observe the halakhot of a woman after childbirth, that she brings an offering for the sandal fetus.
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, וּמִי אִיתַנְהוּ לְהָנֵי שִׁינּוּיֵי? וְהָא תַנְיָא: כְּשֶׁהֵן יוֹצְאִין — אֵין יוֹצְאִין אֶלָּא כְּרוּכִין!
The Sages said the answers to these questions before Rav Pappa, and they asked him: And are these answers correct? Can it be suggested that the sandal fetus was born before or after the twin fetus? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that when a sandal fetus and the full-fledged offspring exit the womb, they exit only wrapped around one another?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שְׁמַע מִינָּה, מִכְרַךְ כָּרֵיךְ לֵיהּ וָלָד לְסַנְדָּל אַפַּלְגֵיהּ, וּמְשַׁלְחֵיף לֵיהּ כְּלַפֵּי רֵישֵׁיהּ. גַּבֵּי בְּכוֹרוֹת, כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצְאוּ דֶּרֶךְ רָאשֵׁיהֶם, דְּסַנְדָּל קָדֵים וְנָפֵיק. גַּבֵּי כָּרֵיתוֹת, שֶׁיָּצְאוּ דֶּרֶךְ מַרְגְּלוֹתֵיהֶם, דְּוָלָד קָדֵים וְנָפֵיק.
Rav Pappa said in response: Conclude from it that the sandal fetus and its twin do not lie side by side, but rather the full-fledged offspring encounters the sandal fetus at half its height, i.e., the head of the full-fledged offspring presses into the abdomen of the sandal fetus. And when they are born, the full-fledged offspring pushes the sandal fetus toward the direction its head is pointing, to the entrance of the womb, causing the sandal fetus to be born first. Therefore, the mishna with regard to firstborns can be explained as referring to a case where the fetuses exited the womb with their heads first, as in such a case the sandal fetus emerges first. By contrast, the mishna in tractate Karetot is referring to a case where they emerged with their feet first, as in such a case the full-fledged offspring emerges first.
רַב הוּנָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא מְצוּמְצָמִין, וְאֵיפוֹךְ שְׁמַעְתָּתָא. גַּבֵּי בְּכוֹרוֹת — שֶׁיָּצְאוּ דֶּרֶךְ מַרְגְּלוֹתֵיהֶם, וָלָד דְּאִית בֵּיהּ חִיּוּתָא סָרֵיךְ וְלָא נָפֵיק, סַנְדָּל דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ חִיּוּתָא שָׁרֵיק וְנָפֵיק. גַּבֵּי כָּרֵיתוֹת — שֶׁיָּצְאוּ דֶּרֶךְ רָאשֵׁיהֶן, וָלָד דְּאִית בֵּיהּ חִיּוּתָא מִדְּנָפֵיק רֵישֵׁיהּ הָוְיָא לֵידָה, סַנְדָּל עַד דְּנָפֵיק רוּבֵּיהּ.
Rav Huna bar Taḥlifa says in the name of Rava: You may even say that the two fetuses lie precisely side by side, and you should reverse Rav Pappa’s halakha so that it reads as follows: With regard to firstborns, the reference is to a case where the fetuses emerged with their feet first. In such a case, the full-fledged offspring, which has life, hangs on and does not emerge so quickly, whereas the sandal fetus, which does not have life, slides out and emerges first. In tractate Karetot, it is referring to a case where the fetuses came out with their heads first. In such an instance, with regard to the full-fledged offspring, which has life, once its head emerges it is considered a birth, whereas the sandal fetus is considered to have been born only when the majority of its body emerges.
מַתְנִי’ שִׁלְיָא בַּבַּיִת — הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, לֹא שֶׁהַשִּׁלְיָא וָלָד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין שִׁלְיָא בְּלֹא וָלָד.
MISHNA: If there is an afterbirth in the house, the house is ritually impure, in the sense that everything under the roof contracts impurity imparted by a corpse. The reason is not that the status of an afterbirth is that of an offspring; rather, it is that there is no afterbirth without an offspring. It is clear that the afterbirth contained an offspring that disintegrated after the miscarriage. That offspring rendered the contents of the house impure.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: נִימּוֹק הַוָּלָד, עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא.
Rabbi Shimon says: The house does not become a tent over a corpse, as although there had been an offspring in the afterbirth, the offspring disintegrated, turning to blood, before it emerged from the womb, and it was negated by the majority of blood that accompanied the miscarriage.
גְּמָ’ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שִׁלְיָא — תְּחִלָּתָהּ דּוֹמָה לְחוּט שֶׁל עֵרֶב, וְסוֹפָהּ דּוֹמָה כְּתוֹרְמוֹס, וַחֲלוּלָה כַּחֲצוֹצֶרֶת, וְאֵין שִׁלְיָא פְּחוּתָה מִטֶּפַח. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שִׁלְיָא דּוֹמֶה לְקוּרְקְבָן שֶׁל תַּרְנְגוֹלִין, שֶׁהַדַּקִּין יוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנָּה.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the appearance of the afterbirth: At the outset of the pregnancy, the afterbirth is so thin that it is similar to a string of the woof, and at the end of the pregnancy it is much wider, similar in width to a lupine. And the afterbirth is hollow like a trumpet, and there is no afterbirth whose length is less than a handbreadth. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: An afterbirth is similar to the craw of roosters, from which the small intestine emerges.
תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא זְעֵירָא דְמִן חַבְרַיָּא — חֲמִשָּׁה שִׁיעוּרָן טֶפַח, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: שִׁלְיָא, שׁוֹפָר, שִׁדְרָה, דּוֹפֶן סוּכָּה, וְהָאֵזוֹב.
Since the baraita states that the minimum length of an afterbirth is a handbreadth, the Gemara cites another baraita that lists different items whose halakhic status is dependent on a minimum measure of a handbreadth. It is taught by Rabbi Oshaya, the youngest [ze’eira] of the company [demin ḥavrayya] of Sages: There are five items whose minimum measure is one handbreadth, and these are they: An afterbirth, the shofar for blowing on Rosh HaShana, the spine of a lulav that must be taken on Sukkot, the width of the wall of a sukka, and the hyssop [veha’ezov]. Hyssop is used for the purification of a leper and for the preparation of the ashes of a red heifer in order to sprinkle them with water on someone who is ritually impure due to impurity imparted by a corpse.
שִׁלְיָא — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. שׁוֹפָר — דְּתַנְיָא: כַּמָּה יְהֵא שִׁיעוּר שׁוֹפָר? פֵּירֵשׁ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאחֲזֶנּוּ בְּיָדוֹ, וְיֵרָאֶה לְכָאן וּלְכָאן טֶפַח.
The Gemara elaborates: The halakha with regard to an afterbirth is that which we stated above. The halakha of a shofar is as it is taught in a baraita: How much is the measure of the length of a shofar for blowing on Rosh HaShana? Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel explained: It must be long enough that when one holds it in his hand with four fingers, it can be seen protruding on one side of his hand and on the other side, i.e., at least one handbreadth.
שִׁדְרָה מָה הִיא? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי פַּרְנָךְ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שִׁדְרוֹ שֶׁל לוּלָב צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹצֵא מִן הַהֲדַס טֶפַח. דּוֹפֶן סוּכָּה — דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁתַּיִם כְּהִלְכָתָן, שְׁלִישִׁית אֲפִילּוּ טֶפַח. אֵזוֹב — דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אֵזוֹב טֶפַח.
What is the halakha with regard to a spine of a lulav? It is as Rabbi Parnakh said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The spine of a lulav must protrude at least one handbreadth beyond the myrtle branch that is tied together with it. The halakha of the wall of a sukka is as it is taught in a baraita: A sukka is valid only if it has two full-fledged partitions in the standard sense, completely closing each of those two sides and measuring at least seven handbreadths, and a third wall that measures even one handbreadth. If the third wall is less than a handbreadth long, the sukka is unfit. Finally, the halakha with regard to the hyssop is stated in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: The hyssop used for the purification of a leper and for the preparation of the ashes of a red heifer must measure at least one handbreadth.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא: דָּרֵישׁ שֵׁילָא אִישׁ כְּפַר תְּמַרְתָּא — תְּלָת מַתְנְיָתָא, וְתַרְתֵּי שְׁמַעְתָּתָא, שִׁיעוּרָא טֶפַח. תַּרְתֵּי? חֲדָא הִיא! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֵימָא — אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אֵזוֹב טֶפַח.
Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says that Sheila of Kefar Temarta taught as a mnemonic: There are three baraitot, with regard to an afterbirth, a shofar, and the wall of a sukka, and there are two independent halakhot of amora’im, of the spine of a lulav and the hyssop, where the minimum measure of one handbreadth is required. The Gemara asks: Are there two halakhot of amora’im in this list? There is only one statement, with regard to the spine of a lulav. The halakha of the hyssop is taught in a baraita by Rabbi Ḥiyya. Abaye says: Revise the wording of that statement, so that it should not read that Rabbi Ḥiyya taught a baraita; rather, say that Rabbi Ḥiyya says himself that the hyssop must measure at least one handbreadth, i.e., that halakha is not taught in a baraita.
וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָאִיכָּא טֶפַח עַל טֶפַח עַל רוּם טֶפַח מְרוּבָּע — מֵבִיא אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה, וְחוֹצֵץ בִּפְנֵי הַטּוּמְאָה.
The Gemara asks: And are there no more cases where the minimum measure is one handbreadth, other than those five listed by Rabbi Oshaya? But isn’t there the following mishna (Oholot 3:7) that deals with the minimum size of a tent that transmits ritual impurity: A cubic space measuring one handbreadth by one handbreadth with a height of one handbreadth transmits ritual impurity. If a corpse is in that space, the impurity is transmitted to all people, vessels, and food in that space. And a space of that size serves as a barrier before, i.e., stops the spread of, ritual impurity beyond that space.
טֶפַח קָאָמְרִינַן, טֶפַח עַל טֶפַח לָא קָאָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara answers: We said that there are five items whose minimum measure is one handbreadth; we did not say anything about a space whose measure is one handbreadth by one handbreadth.
וְהָא אִיכָּא אֶבֶן הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַתַּנּוּר טֶפַח, וּמִן הַכִּירָה שָׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבָּעוֹת — חִבּוּר!
The Gemara further asks: But isn’t there the following mishna (Kelim 5:2): A stone that protrudes from the oven by one handbreadth, which is used as a handle for lifting and carrying the oven, and similarly a stone that protrudes from the stove three fingerbreadths is considered as having a connection to the oven or stove with regard to ritual impurity. Consequently, if the oven or stove becomes impure, then the stone handle, which is classified as part of the oven, is likewise rendered impure. If the handle is longer than that, the additional length will be removed, so it is not considered to be part of the oven.
כִּי קָאָמְרִינַן הֵיכָא דִּבְצִיר מִטֶּפַח לָא חֲזֵי, אֲבָל הָכָא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דִּבְצִיר מִטֶּפַח — יַד תַּנּוּר הוּא.
The Gemara answers: When we said that there are five items whose minimum measure is one handbreadth, we were referring to cases where if it less than one handbreadth it is unfit for the purpose of the item. But here, where a protruding stone one handbreadth long is considered a handle of the oven, it is all the more so the case that a protruding stone less than one handbreadth long is considered a handle of the oven.
וְהָאִיכָּא
The Gemara asks: But aren’t there
תַּנּוּרֵי בָּנוֹת טֶפַח! דְּתַנְיָא: תַּנּוּר תְּחִלָּתוֹ אַרְבָּעָה וּשְׁיָרָיו אַרְבָּעָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
toy ovens with which girls play, whose minimum measure with regard to ritual impurity is also one handbreadth? As it is taught in a mishna (Kelim 5:1): A clay oven in its original, unbroken, state is susceptible to ritual impurity if it is four handbreadths tall. And with regard to an oven that became impure and was subsequently broken, if its remains include a piece four handbreadths tall, that piece remains impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּגָדוֹל, אֲבָל בְּקָטָן — תְּחִלָּתוֹ כֹּל שֶׁהוּא מִשֶּׁתִּגָּמֵר מְלַאכְתּוֹ, וּשְׁיָרָיו בְּרוּבּוֹ.
And the Rabbis say: In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of a large oven, made for regular use; but with regard to a small oven made for girls to play with, in its original state, any size is sufficient for it to be susceptible to contract impurity. Once its construction is completed, if the oven then becomes impure and is subsequently broken, if its remains include a piece that contains the majority of the oven, that piece remains impure.
וְכַמָּה ״כֹּל שֶׁהוּא״? אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: טֶפַח, שֶׁכֵּן עוֹשִׂין תַּנּוּרֵי בָּנוֹת טֶפַח. בִּפְלוּגְתָּא לָא קָמַיְירֵי.
The Gemara explains: And how small is the size defined by the mishna as any size? Rabbi Yannai says: One handbreadth, as people fashion toy ovens for girls one handbreadth high. This is another example of an item that has a minimum measure of one handbreadth, in addition to the five items listed by Rabbi Oshaya. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Oshaya is not speaking of matters that are subject to dispute, such as the minimum measure of an oven.
הַשְׁתָּא דַאֲתֵית לְהָכִי, הָא נָמֵי פְּלוּגְתָּא הִיא. דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא אָמְרוּ טֶפַח אֶלָּא מִן הַתַּנּוּר וְלַכּוֹתֶל.
The Gemara adds: Now that you have arrived at this answer, the fact that Rabbi Oshaya does not mention a stone protruding from an oven can be explained in the same manner, since this halakha is also subject to a dispute. As the latter clause of that mishna (Kelim 5:2) teaches that Rabbi Yehuda said: When the Sages said that a stone protruding from an oven is considered a handle if it protrudes one handbreadth, they said so only with regard to a stone that protrudes from the oven and toward the wall. If the stone protrudes more than that, it is not considered a handle, as it is likely to be removed so that the oven can be moved closer to the wall. But if the stone protrudes toward the airspace of the house, it is considered an oven handle even if it protrudes more than one handbreadth.
וְהָאִיכָּא מִסְגֶּרֶת טֶפַח! בְּדִכְתִיבָן לָא קָא מַיְירֵי, וְהָאִיכָּא כַּפּוֹרֶת טֶפַח, בְּקָדָשִׁים לָא קָמַיְירֵי.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t there the frame of the Table in the Temple, which is one handbreadth wide, as stated in the Torah (Exodus 25:25)? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Oshaya is not dealing with matters that are written in the Torah. The Gemara further asks: But isn’t there the Ark Cover, which is one handbreadth thick, and its measure is not written explicitly in the Torah? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Oshaya is not dealing with consecrated items.
וְהָאִיכָּא דַּיָּהּ לַקּוֹרָה שֶׁהִיא רְחָבָה טֶפַח! בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא קָמַיְירֵי, אֶלָּא בְּדִכְתִיבָן וְלָא מְפָרְשִׁי שִׁיעוּרַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the halakha of a cross beam, which is placed over the entrance to an alleyway in order to permit carrying items in the alleyway on Shabbat, and the halakha is that it is enough for a cross beam to be one handbreadth wide? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Oshaya is not dealing with matters of rabbinic law. Rather, he is speaking only of matters that are written in the Torah but whose measure is not explicit in the Torah.
יָתֵיב רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים תּוֹלִין אֶת הַשִּׁלְיָא בַּוָּלָד, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר.
§ Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta sat before Rav Kahana, and he sat and said that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: For all of the first three days after a woman gives birth, if she discharges afterbirth, we attribute the afterbirth to the offspring. There is no concern that this afterbirth indicates the miscarriage of another offspring. From this point forward, once three days have passed since the birth, if the woman discharges an afterbirth, we are concerned that there might have been another offspring in the afterbirth, and the halakhot of a woman who discharged an offspring apply to her.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּמִי אָמַר רַב הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב: אֵין הַוָּלָד מִתְעַכֵּב אַחַר חֲבֵירוֹ כְּלוּם! אִישְׁתִּיק. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא כָּאן בְּנֵפֶל, כָּאן בְּבֶן קַיָּימָא?
Rav Kahana said to Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel: And did Rav say this? But didn’t Rav say that an offspring does not remain in the womb at all after another offspring was born? Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel was silent. Rav Kahana said to him: Perhaps there is no contradiction between Rav’s two statements, as here, where he indicates that a second offspring can emerge even three days after the first, the reference is to a case where the first offspring is a non-viable newborn, whereas there, in the statement that a second offspring does not remain in the womb after the first offspring was born, he is referring to a case where the first offspring is a viable offspring.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ לִשְׁמַעְתְּתֵיהּ דְּרַב בְּפֵירוּשׁ? אָמַר רַב הָכִי: הִפִּילָה נֵפֶל וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא — כָּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים תּוֹלִין אֶת הַשִּׁלְיָא בַּוָּלָד, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר. יָלְדָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא — אֲפִילּוּ מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel said to him: Are you the one who says this explanation of Rav’s halakha of your own accord? Indeed, Rav said this explicitly: If a woman discharged a non-viable newborn and subsequently discharged an afterbirth, for all of the first three days we attribute the afterbirth to the offspring. From this point forward, if she discharged an afterbirth we are concerned that it contained another offspring. If she gave birth to a viable offspring and subsequently discharged an afterbirth, even from now until ten days after the birth we are not concerned that the afterbirth contained another offspring.
שְׁמוּאֵל וְתַלְמִידִי דְּרַב וְרַב יְהוּדָה הֲווֹ יָתְבִי, חָלֵיף וְאָזֵיל רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְנַשְּׁיָא מִדְּוִיל לְאַפַּיְיהוּ, בָּאלַי וְאָתֵי. אֲמַר: אָתֵי לַן גַּבְרָא דְּרָמֵינַן לֵיהּ בְּגִילָא דְּחִטְּתָא וּמִרְמֵי וּמִדְחֵי.
The Gemara relates: Shmuel, Rav’s students, and Rav Yehuda were sitting together. Rav Yosef, son of Rav Menashya of D’vil, was passing by and walking toward them, i.e., he was walking in their direction, and he was hurrying and coming along. Shmuel said to his company: A man is coming toward us whom one can knock down with a straw of wheat, and he falls and stays down. In other words, he cannot refute even a minor challenge to his opinions.
אַדְּהָכִי אֲתָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל: מַאי אָמַר רַב בְּשִׁלְיָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב: אֵין תּוֹלִין אֶת הַשִּׁלְיָא אֶלָּא בְּדָבָר שֶׁל קְיָימָא. שַׁיְילִינְהוּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְכׇל תַּלְמִידֵי דְּרַב, וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: הָכִי. הֲדַר חַזְיֵיהּ לְרַב יְהוּדָה בִּישׁוּת.
In the meantime, Rav Yosef, son of Rav Menashya, arrived. Shmuel said to him: What did Rav say with regard to an afterbirth? Rav Yosef said to him that this is what Rav said: One attributes an afterbirth only to a viable item, i.e., a viable offspring. Shmuel subsequently asked all of Rav’s students who were present whether Rav actually said this, and they said to him that Rav indeed said so. Shmuel then looked at Rav Yehuda harshly, as Rav Yehuda was also a student of Rav, but he had not transmitted this halakha to Shmuel after Rav’s death.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן שָׁאוּל מֵרַבִּי: הַמַּפֶּלֶת דְּמוּת עוֹרֵב וְשִׁלְיָא מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין תּוֹלִין אֶלָּא בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּמִינוֹ שִׁלְיָא.
§ Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: In the case of a woman who discharges an item in the form of a crow and there is also an afterbirth, what is the halakha? Is the afterbirth attributed to the discharged item, or is there concern that the afterbirth might have contained another offspring? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: One attributes an afterbirth only to an item whose species has an afterbirth. Since crows do not have an afterbirth, the afterbirth cannot be associated with that discharged item.
קְשׁוּרָה בּוֹ מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁאַלְתָּ. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: הַמַּפֶּלֶת מִין בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף וְשִׁלְיָא עִמָּהֶן, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַשִּׁלְיָא קְשׁוּרָה עִמָּהֶן — אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר, אֵין שִׁלְיָא קְשׁוּרָה עִמָּהֶן — חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר, הֲרֵינִי מֵטִיל עֲלֵיהֶן
Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul then asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If the afterbirth is tied to the item that has the form of a crow, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: You asked about a matter that does not exist. Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul raised an objection to this response from a baraita: With regard to a woman who discharges a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, and she discharges an afterbirth with them, in an instance when the afterbirth is tied to them we are not concerned about the possibility of another offspring. If the afterbirth is not tied to them, we are concerned that the afterbirth contained another offspring. And I impose upon them
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
New York, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
Niddah 26
גַּבֵּי בְּכוֹרוֹת, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא?
with regard to firstborns (Bekhorot 46a), which states that the son who is born after a sandal fetus has the status of a firstborn with regard to inheritance but not with regard to the obligation of redemption from a priest. The Gemara asks: For what matter is that halakha relevant? Since the sandal fetus has a twin that is born with it, the subsequent son is in any case exempt from redemption.
לַבָּא אַחֲרָיו — בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה, וְאֵין בְּכוֹר לְכֹהֵן.
The Gemara answers: That halakha is relevant for a case where the sandal fetus’s twin comes out of the womb after it. The mishna teaches that as the sandal fetus was born first, its twin is considered a firstborn with regard to inheritance, but it is not a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest.
סַנְדָּל דִּתְנַן גַּבֵּי כָּרֵיתוֹת, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא?
The Gemara discusses the halakha with regard to a woman who discharged a sandal fetus that we learned in a mishna in tractate Karetot (7b), which states that such a woman brings the offering of a woman who gave birth. The Gemara asks: For what matter is that halakha relevant? In any case that woman is obligated to bring the offering of a woman who gave birth, due to the twin.
שֶׁאִם תֵּלֵד וָלָד דֶּרֶךְ דּוֹפֶן, וְסַנְדָּל דֶּרֶךְ רֶחֶם — דְּמַיְיתָא קׇרְבָּן אַסַּנְדָּל.
The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the mishna to state that if a woman gives birth to a full-fledged offspring by means of caesarean section, and to a sandal fetus in a regular manner through the womb, in such a case she brings an offering for giving birth to the sandal fetus, despite the fact that she does not bring an offering for the full-fledged offspring, as one does not bring an offering for a birth by caesarean section.
וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: יוֹצֵא דֶּרֶךְ דּוֹפֶן וָלָד מְעַלְּיָא הוּא — מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Shimon, who said that an offspring which is delivered by means of caesarean section is considered a full-fledged offspring, and its mother does bring an offering, what is there to say? Why is it necessary for the mishna to state this halakha if the woman must bring an offering regardless of the sandal fetus?
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: שֶׁאִם תֵּלֵד וָלָד בְּגַיּוּתָהּ, וְסַנְדָּל לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירָה — דְּמַיְיתָא קׇרְבָּן אַסַּנְדָּל.
Rabbi Yirmeya says: It is necessary for the mishna to state that if a woman gives birth to the full-fledged offspring while she is a gentile, when the halakhot of a woman after childbirth do not apply to her, and she immediately converts to Judaism and gives birth to the sandal fetus after she converted and became obligated to observe the halakhot of a woman after childbirth, that she brings an offering for the sandal fetus.
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, וּמִי אִיתַנְהוּ לְהָנֵי שִׁינּוּיֵי? וְהָא תַנְיָא: כְּשֶׁהֵן יוֹצְאִין — אֵין יוֹצְאִין אֶלָּא כְּרוּכִין!
The Sages said the answers to these questions before Rav Pappa, and they asked him: And are these answers correct? Can it be suggested that the sandal fetus was born before or after the twin fetus? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that when a sandal fetus and the full-fledged offspring exit the womb, they exit only wrapped around one another?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שְׁמַע מִינָּה, מִכְרַךְ כָּרֵיךְ לֵיהּ וָלָד לְסַנְדָּל אַפַּלְגֵיהּ, וּמְשַׁלְחֵיף לֵיהּ כְּלַפֵּי רֵישֵׁיהּ. גַּבֵּי בְּכוֹרוֹת, כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצְאוּ דֶּרֶךְ רָאשֵׁיהֶם, דְּסַנְדָּל קָדֵים וְנָפֵיק. גַּבֵּי כָּרֵיתוֹת, שֶׁיָּצְאוּ דֶּרֶךְ מַרְגְּלוֹתֵיהֶם, דְּוָלָד קָדֵים וְנָפֵיק.
Rav Pappa said in response: Conclude from it that the sandal fetus and its twin do not lie side by side, but rather the full-fledged offspring encounters the sandal fetus at half its height, i.e., the head of the full-fledged offspring presses into the abdomen of the sandal fetus. And when they are born, the full-fledged offspring pushes the sandal fetus toward the direction its head is pointing, to the entrance of the womb, causing the sandal fetus to be born first. Therefore, the mishna with regard to firstborns can be explained as referring to a case where the fetuses exited the womb with their heads first, as in such a case the sandal fetus emerges first. By contrast, the mishna in tractate Karetot is referring to a case where they emerged with their feet first, as in such a case the full-fledged offspring emerges first.
רַב הוּנָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא מְצוּמְצָמִין, וְאֵיפוֹךְ שְׁמַעְתָּתָא. גַּבֵּי בְּכוֹרוֹת — שֶׁיָּצְאוּ דֶּרֶךְ מַרְגְּלוֹתֵיהֶם, וָלָד דְּאִית בֵּיהּ חִיּוּתָא סָרֵיךְ וְלָא נָפֵיק, סַנְדָּל דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ חִיּוּתָא שָׁרֵיק וְנָפֵיק. גַּבֵּי כָּרֵיתוֹת — שֶׁיָּצְאוּ דֶּרֶךְ רָאשֵׁיהֶן, וָלָד דְּאִית בֵּיהּ חִיּוּתָא מִדְּנָפֵיק רֵישֵׁיהּ הָוְיָא לֵידָה, סַנְדָּל עַד דְּנָפֵיק רוּבֵּיהּ.
Rav Huna bar Taḥlifa says in the name of Rava: You may even say that the two fetuses lie precisely side by side, and you should reverse Rav Pappa’s halakha so that it reads as follows: With regard to firstborns, the reference is to a case where the fetuses emerged with their feet first. In such a case, the full-fledged offspring, which has life, hangs on and does not emerge so quickly, whereas the sandal fetus, which does not have life, slides out and emerges first. In tractate Karetot, it is referring to a case where the fetuses came out with their heads first. In such an instance, with regard to the full-fledged offspring, which has life, once its head emerges it is considered a birth, whereas the sandal fetus is considered to have been born only when the majority of its body emerges.
מַתְנִי’ שִׁלְיָא בַּבַּיִת — הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, לֹא שֶׁהַשִּׁלְיָא וָלָד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין שִׁלְיָא בְּלֹא וָלָד.
MISHNA: If there is an afterbirth in the house, the house is ritually impure, in the sense that everything under the roof contracts impurity imparted by a corpse. The reason is not that the status of an afterbirth is that of an offspring; rather, it is that there is no afterbirth without an offspring. It is clear that the afterbirth contained an offspring that disintegrated after the miscarriage. That offspring rendered the contents of the house impure.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: נִימּוֹק הַוָּלָד, עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא.
Rabbi Shimon says: The house does not become a tent over a corpse, as although there had been an offspring in the afterbirth, the offspring disintegrated, turning to blood, before it emerged from the womb, and it was negated by the majority of blood that accompanied the miscarriage.
גְּמָ’ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שִׁלְיָא — תְּחִלָּתָהּ דּוֹמָה לְחוּט שֶׁל עֵרֶב, וְסוֹפָהּ דּוֹמָה כְּתוֹרְמוֹס, וַחֲלוּלָה כַּחֲצוֹצֶרֶת, וְאֵין שִׁלְיָא פְּחוּתָה מִטֶּפַח. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שִׁלְיָא דּוֹמֶה לְקוּרְקְבָן שֶׁל תַּרְנְגוֹלִין, שֶׁהַדַּקִּין יוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנָּה.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the appearance of the afterbirth: At the outset of the pregnancy, the afterbirth is so thin that it is similar to a string of the woof, and at the end of the pregnancy it is much wider, similar in width to a lupine. And the afterbirth is hollow like a trumpet, and there is no afterbirth whose length is less than a handbreadth. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: An afterbirth is similar to the craw of roosters, from which the small intestine emerges.
תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא זְעֵירָא דְמִן חַבְרַיָּא — חֲמִשָּׁה שִׁיעוּרָן טֶפַח, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: שִׁלְיָא, שׁוֹפָר, שִׁדְרָה, דּוֹפֶן סוּכָּה, וְהָאֵזוֹב.
Since the baraita states that the minimum length of an afterbirth is a handbreadth, the Gemara cites another baraita that lists different items whose halakhic status is dependent on a minimum measure of a handbreadth. It is taught by Rabbi Oshaya, the youngest [ze’eira] of the company [demin ḥavrayya] of Sages: There are five items whose minimum measure is one handbreadth, and these are they: An afterbirth, the shofar for blowing on Rosh HaShana, the spine of a lulav that must be taken on Sukkot, the width of the wall of a sukka, and the hyssop [veha’ezov]. Hyssop is used for the purification of a leper and for the preparation of the ashes of a red heifer in order to sprinkle them with water on someone who is ritually impure due to impurity imparted by a corpse.
שִׁלְיָא — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. שׁוֹפָר — דְּתַנְיָא: כַּמָּה יְהֵא שִׁיעוּר שׁוֹפָר? פֵּירֵשׁ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאחֲזֶנּוּ בְּיָדוֹ, וְיֵרָאֶה לְכָאן וּלְכָאן טֶפַח.
The Gemara elaborates: The halakha with regard to an afterbirth is that which we stated above. The halakha of a shofar is as it is taught in a baraita: How much is the measure of the length of a shofar for blowing on Rosh HaShana? Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel explained: It must be long enough that when one holds it in his hand with four fingers, it can be seen protruding on one side of his hand and on the other side, i.e., at least one handbreadth.
שִׁדְרָה מָה הִיא? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי פַּרְנָךְ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שִׁדְרוֹ שֶׁל לוּלָב צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹצֵא מִן הַהֲדַס טֶפַח. דּוֹפֶן סוּכָּה — דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁתַּיִם כְּהִלְכָתָן, שְׁלִישִׁית אֲפִילּוּ טֶפַח. אֵזוֹב — דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אֵזוֹב טֶפַח.
What is the halakha with regard to a spine of a lulav? It is as Rabbi Parnakh said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The spine of a lulav must protrude at least one handbreadth beyond the myrtle branch that is tied together with it. The halakha of the wall of a sukka is as it is taught in a baraita: A sukka is valid only if it has two full-fledged partitions in the standard sense, completely closing each of those two sides and measuring at least seven handbreadths, and a third wall that measures even one handbreadth. If the third wall is less than a handbreadth long, the sukka is unfit. Finally, the halakha with regard to the hyssop is stated in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: The hyssop used for the purification of a leper and for the preparation of the ashes of a red heifer must measure at least one handbreadth.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא: דָּרֵישׁ שֵׁילָא אִישׁ כְּפַר תְּמַרְתָּא — תְּלָת מַתְנְיָתָא, וְתַרְתֵּי שְׁמַעְתָּתָא, שִׁיעוּרָא טֶפַח. תַּרְתֵּי? חֲדָא הִיא! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֵימָא — אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אֵזוֹב טֶפַח.
Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says that Sheila of Kefar Temarta taught as a mnemonic: There are three baraitot, with regard to an afterbirth, a shofar, and the wall of a sukka, and there are two independent halakhot of amora’im, of the spine of a lulav and the hyssop, where the minimum measure of one handbreadth is required. The Gemara asks: Are there two halakhot of amora’im in this list? There is only one statement, with regard to the spine of a lulav. The halakha of the hyssop is taught in a baraita by Rabbi Ḥiyya. Abaye says: Revise the wording of that statement, so that it should not read that Rabbi Ḥiyya taught a baraita; rather, say that Rabbi Ḥiyya says himself that the hyssop must measure at least one handbreadth, i.e., that halakha is not taught in a baraita.
וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָאִיכָּא טֶפַח עַל טֶפַח עַל רוּם טֶפַח מְרוּבָּע — מֵבִיא אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה, וְחוֹצֵץ בִּפְנֵי הַטּוּמְאָה.
The Gemara asks: And are there no more cases where the minimum measure is one handbreadth, other than those five listed by Rabbi Oshaya? But isn’t there the following mishna (Oholot 3:7) that deals with the minimum size of a tent that transmits ritual impurity: A cubic space measuring one handbreadth by one handbreadth with a height of one handbreadth transmits ritual impurity. If a corpse is in that space, the impurity is transmitted to all people, vessels, and food in that space. And a space of that size serves as a barrier before, i.e., stops the spread of, ritual impurity beyond that space.
טֶפַח קָאָמְרִינַן, טֶפַח עַל טֶפַח לָא קָאָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara answers: We said that there are five items whose minimum measure is one handbreadth; we did not say anything about a space whose measure is one handbreadth by one handbreadth.
וְהָא אִיכָּא אֶבֶן הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַתַּנּוּר טֶפַח, וּמִן הַכִּירָה שָׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבָּעוֹת — חִבּוּר!
The Gemara further asks: But isn’t there the following mishna (Kelim 5:2): A stone that protrudes from the oven by one handbreadth, which is used as a handle for lifting and carrying the oven, and similarly a stone that protrudes from the stove three fingerbreadths is considered as having a connection to the oven or stove with regard to ritual impurity. Consequently, if the oven or stove becomes impure, then the stone handle, which is classified as part of the oven, is likewise rendered impure. If the handle is longer than that, the additional length will be removed, so it is not considered to be part of the oven.
כִּי קָאָמְרִינַן הֵיכָא דִּבְצִיר מִטֶּפַח לָא חֲזֵי, אֲבָל הָכָא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דִּבְצִיר מִטֶּפַח — יַד תַּנּוּר הוּא.
The Gemara answers: When we said that there are five items whose minimum measure is one handbreadth, we were referring to cases where if it less than one handbreadth it is unfit for the purpose of the item. But here, where a protruding stone one handbreadth long is considered a handle of the oven, it is all the more so the case that a protruding stone less than one handbreadth long is considered a handle of the oven.
וְהָאִיכָּא
The Gemara asks: But aren’t there
תַּנּוּרֵי בָּנוֹת טֶפַח! דְּתַנְיָא: תַּנּוּר תְּחִלָּתוֹ אַרְבָּעָה וּשְׁיָרָיו אַרְבָּעָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.
toy ovens with which girls play, whose minimum measure with regard to ritual impurity is also one handbreadth? As it is taught in a mishna (Kelim 5:1): A clay oven in its original, unbroken, state is susceptible to ritual impurity if it is four handbreadths tall. And with regard to an oven that became impure and was subsequently broken, if its remains include a piece four handbreadths tall, that piece remains impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּגָדוֹל, אֲבָל בְּקָטָן — תְּחִלָּתוֹ כֹּל שֶׁהוּא מִשֶּׁתִּגָּמֵר מְלַאכְתּוֹ, וּשְׁיָרָיו בְּרוּבּוֹ.
And the Rabbis say: In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of a large oven, made for regular use; but with regard to a small oven made for girls to play with, in its original state, any size is sufficient for it to be susceptible to contract impurity. Once its construction is completed, if the oven then becomes impure and is subsequently broken, if its remains include a piece that contains the majority of the oven, that piece remains impure.
וְכַמָּה ״כֹּל שֶׁהוּא״? אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: טֶפַח, שֶׁכֵּן עוֹשִׂין תַּנּוּרֵי בָּנוֹת טֶפַח. בִּפְלוּגְתָּא לָא קָמַיְירֵי.
The Gemara explains: And how small is the size defined by the mishna as any size? Rabbi Yannai says: One handbreadth, as people fashion toy ovens for girls one handbreadth high. This is another example of an item that has a minimum measure of one handbreadth, in addition to the five items listed by Rabbi Oshaya. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Oshaya is not speaking of matters that are subject to dispute, such as the minimum measure of an oven.
הַשְׁתָּא דַאֲתֵית לְהָכִי, הָא נָמֵי פְּלוּגְתָּא הִיא. דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא אָמְרוּ טֶפַח אֶלָּא מִן הַתַּנּוּר וְלַכּוֹתֶל.
The Gemara adds: Now that you have arrived at this answer, the fact that Rabbi Oshaya does not mention a stone protruding from an oven can be explained in the same manner, since this halakha is also subject to a dispute. As the latter clause of that mishna (Kelim 5:2) teaches that Rabbi Yehuda said: When the Sages said that a stone protruding from an oven is considered a handle if it protrudes one handbreadth, they said so only with regard to a stone that protrudes from the oven and toward the wall. If the stone protrudes more than that, it is not considered a handle, as it is likely to be removed so that the oven can be moved closer to the wall. But if the stone protrudes toward the airspace of the house, it is considered an oven handle even if it protrudes more than one handbreadth.
וְהָאִיכָּא מִסְגֶּרֶת טֶפַח! בְּדִכְתִיבָן לָא קָא מַיְירֵי, וְהָאִיכָּא כַּפּוֹרֶת טֶפַח, בְּקָדָשִׁים לָא קָמַיְירֵי.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t there the frame of the Table in the Temple, which is one handbreadth wide, as stated in the Torah (Exodus 25:25)? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Oshaya is not dealing with matters that are written in the Torah. The Gemara further asks: But isn’t there the Ark Cover, which is one handbreadth thick, and its measure is not written explicitly in the Torah? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Oshaya is not dealing with consecrated items.
וְהָאִיכָּא דַּיָּהּ לַקּוֹרָה שֶׁהִיא רְחָבָה טֶפַח! בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא קָמַיְירֵי, אֶלָּא בְּדִכְתִיבָן וְלָא מְפָרְשִׁי שִׁיעוּרַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the halakha of a cross beam, which is placed over the entrance to an alleyway in order to permit carrying items in the alleyway on Shabbat, and the halakha is that it is enough for a cross beam to be one handbreadth wide? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Oshaya is not dealing with matters of rabbinic law. Rather, he is speaking only of matters that are written in the Torah but whose measure is not explicit in the Torah.
יָתֵיב רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים תּוֹלִין אֶת הַשִּׁלְיָא בַּוָּלָד, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר.
§ Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta sat before Rav Kahana, and he sat and said that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: For all of the first three days after a woman gives birth, if she discharges afterbirth, we attribute the afterbirth to the offspring. There is no concern that this afterbirth indicates the miscarriage of another offspring. From this point forward, once three days have passed since the birth, if the woman discharges an afterbirth, we are concerned that there might have been another offspring in the afterbirth, and the halakhot of a woman who discharged an offspring apply to her.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּמִי אָמַר רַב הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב: אֵין הַוָּלָד מִתְעַכֵּב אַחַר חֲבֵירוֹ כְּלוּם! אִישְׁתִּיק. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא כָּאן בְּנֵפֶל, כָּאן בְּבֶן קַיָּימָא?
Rav Kahana said to Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel: And did Rav say this? But didn’t Rav say that an offspring does not remain in the womb at all after another offspring was born? Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel was silent. Rav Kahana said to him: Perhaps there is no contradiction between Rav’s two statements, as here, where he indicates that a second offspring can emerge even three days after the first, the reference is to a case where the first offspring is a non-viable newborn, whereas there, in the statement that a second offspring does not remain in the womb after the first offspring was born, he is referring to a case where the first offspring is a viable offspring.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ לִשְׁמַעְתְּתֵיהּ דְּרַב בְּפֵירוּשׁ? אָמַר רַב הָכִי: הִפִּילָה נֵפֶל וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא — כָּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים תּוֹלִין אֶת הַשִּׁלְיָא בַּוָּלָד, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר. יָלְדָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא — אֲפִילּוּ מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel said to him: Are you the one who says this explanation of Rav’s halakha of your own accord? Indeed, Rav said this explicitly: If a woman discharged a non-viable newborn and subsequently discharged an afterbirth, for all of the first three days we attribute the afterbirth to the offspring. From this point forward, if she discharged an afterbirth we are concerned that it contained another offspring. If she gave birth to a viable offspring and subsequently discharged an afterbirth, even from now until ten days after the birth we are not concerned that the afterbirth contained another offspring.
שְׁמוּאֵל וְתַלְמִידִי דְּרַב וְרַב יְהוּדָה הֲווֹ יָתְבִי, חָלֵיף וְאָזֵיל רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְנַשְּׁיָא מִדְּוִיל לְאַפַּיְיהוּ, בָּאלַי וְאָתֵי. אֲמַר: אָתֵי לַן גַּבְרָא דְּרָמֵינַן לֵיהּ בְּגִילָא דְּחִטְּתָא וּמִרְמֵי וּמִדְחֵי.
The Gemara relates: Shmuel, Rav’s students, and Rav Yehuda were sitting together. Rav Yosef, son of Rav Menashya of D’vil, was passing by and walking toward them, i.e., he was walking in their direction, and he was hurrying and coming along. Shmuel said to his company: A man is coming toward us whom one can knock down with a straw of wheat, and he falls and stays down. In other words, he cannot refute even a minor challenge to his opinions.
אַדְּהָכִי אֲתָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל: מַאי אָמַר רַב בְּשִׁלְיָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב: אֵין תּוֹלִין אֶת הַשִּׁלְיָא אֶלָּא בְּדָבָר שֶׁל קְיָימָא. שַׁיְילִינְהוּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְכׇל תַּלְמִידֵי דְּרַב, וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: הָכִי. הֲדַר חַזְיֵיהּ לְרַב יְהוּדָה בִּישׁוּת.
In the meantime, Rav Yosef, son of Rav Menashya, arrived. Shmuel said to him: What did Rav say with regard to an afterbirth? Rav Yosef said to him that this is what Rav said: One attributes an afterbirth only to a viable item, i.e., a viable offspring. Shmuel subsequently asked all of Rav’s students who were present whether Rav actually said this, and they said to him that Rav indeed said so. Shmuel then looked at Rav Yehuda harshly, as Rav Yehuda was also a student of Rav, but he had not transmitted this halakha to Shmuel after Rav’s death.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן שָׁאוּל מֵרַבִּי: הַמַּפֶּלֶת דְּמוּת עוֹרֵב וְשִׁלְיָא מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין תּוֹלִין אֶלָּא בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּמִינוֹ שִׁלְיָא.
§ Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: In the case of a woman who discharges an item in the form of a crow and there is also an afterbirth, what is the halakha? Is the afterbirth attributed to the discharged item, or is there concern that the afterbirth might have contained another offspring? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: One attributes an afterbirth only to an item whose species has an afterbirth. Since crows do not have an afterbirth, the afterbirth cannot be associated with that discharged item.
קְשׁוּרָה בּוֹ מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁאַלְתָּ. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: הַמַּפֶּלֶת מִין בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף וְשִׁלְיָא עִמָּהֶן, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַשִּׁלְיָא קְשׁוּרָה עִמָּהֶן — אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר, אֵין שִׁלְיָא קְשׁוּרָה עִמָּהֶן — חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר, הֲרֵינִי מֵטִיל עֲלֵיהֶן
Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul then asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If the afterbirth is tied to the item that has the form of a crow, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: You asked about a matter that does not exist. Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul raised an objection to this response from a baraita: With regard to a woman who discharges a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, and she discharges an afterbirth with them, in an instance when the afterbirth is tied to them we are not concerned about the possibility of another offspring. If the afterbirth is not tied to them, we are concerned that the afterbirth contained another offspring. And I impose upon them
