Today's Daf Yomi
November 18, 2019 | 讻壮 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖状驻
-
This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Niddah 26
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?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (讚祝 讬讜诪讬 诇谞砖讬诐 - 注讘专讬转): Play in new window | Download
Podcast (讚祝-讬讜诪讬-诇谞砖讬诐): Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转
讙讘讬 讘讻讜专讜转 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗
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.
诇讘讗 讗讞专讬讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉
The Gemara answers: That halakha is relevant for a case where the sandal fetus鈥檚 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.
住谞讚诇 讚转谞谉 讙讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗
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.
砖讗诐 转诇讚 讜诇讚 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉 讜住谞讚诇 讚专讱 专讞诐 讚诪讬讬转讗 拽专讘谉 讗住谞讚诇
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.
讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讬讜爪讗 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉 讜诇讚 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专
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?
讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 砖讗诐 转诇讚 讜诇讚 讘讛讬讜转讛 讙讜讬讛 讜住谞讚诇 诇讗讞专 砖谞转讙讬讬专讛 讚诪讬讬转讗 拽专讘谉 讗住谞讚诇
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.
讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讬 讗讬转谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 砖讬谞讜讬讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻砖讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讗诇讗 讻专讜讻讬谉
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鈥檛 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?
讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讻专讱 讻专讬讱 诇讬讛 讜诇讚 诇住谞讚诇 讗驻诇讙讬讛 讜诪砖诇讞讬祝 诇讬讛 讻诇驻讬 专讬砖讬讛 讙讘讬 讘讻讜专讜转 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗讜 讚专讱 专讗砖讬讛诐 讚住谞讚诇 拽讚讬诐 讜谞驻讬拽 讙讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 砖讬爪讗讜 讚专讱 诪专讙诇讜转讬讛诐 讚讜诇讚 拽讚讬诐 讜谞驻讬拽
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.
专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诪爪讜诪爪诪讬谉 讜讗讬驻讜讱 砖诪注转转讗 讙讘讬 讘讻讜专讜转 砖讬爪讗讜 讚专讱 诪专讙诇讜转讬讛诐 讜诇讚 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讞讬讜转讗 住专讬讱 讜诇讗 谞驻讬拽 住谞讚诇 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讞讬讜转讗 砖专讬拽 讜谞驻讬拽 讙讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 砖讬爪讗讜 讚专讱 专讗砖讬讛谉 讜诇讚 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讞讬讜转讗 诪讚谞驻讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讚讛 住谞讚诇 注讚 讚谞驻讬拽 专讜讘讬讛
Rav Huna bar Ta岣ifa 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鈥檚 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.
诪转谞讬壮 砖诇讬讗 讘讘讬转 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 诇讗 砖讛砖诇讬讗 讜诇讚 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 砖诇讬讗 讘诇讗 讜诇讚
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.
专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 谞讬诪讜拽 讛讜诇讚 注讚 砖诇讗 讬爪讗
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.
讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇讬讗 转讞诇转讛 讚讜诪讛 诇讞讜讟 砖诇 注专讘 讜住讜驻讛 讚讜诪讛 讻转讜专诪讜住 讜讞诇讜诇讛 讻讞爪讜爪专转 讜讗讬谉 砖诇讬讗 驻讞讜转讛 诪讟驻讞 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬讗 讚讜诪讛 诇拽讜专拽讘谉 砖诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 砖讛讚拽讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 诪诪谞讛
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.
转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讝注讬专讗 讚诪谉 讞讘专讬讗 讞诪砖讛 砖讬注讜专谉 讟驻讞 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 砖诇讬讗 砖讜驻专 砖讚专讛 讚讜驻谉 住讜讻讛 讜讛讗讝讜讘
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鈥檈ira] of the company [demin 岣vrayya] 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鈥檈zov]. 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.
砖诇讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 砖讜驻专 讚转谞讬讗 讻诪讛 讬讛讗 砖讬注讜专 砖讜驻专 驻讬专砖 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讻讚讬 砖讬讗讞讝谞讜 讘讬讚讜 讜讬专讗讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讟驻讞
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.
砖讚专讛 诪讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 驻专谞讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讚专讜 砖诇 诇讜诇讘 爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讛讚住 讟驻讞 讚讜驻谉 住讜讻讛 讚转谞讬讗 砖转讬诐 讻讛诇讻转谉 砖诇讬砖讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讞 讗讝讜讘 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讝讜讘 讟驻讞
What is the halakha with regard to a spine of a lulav? It is as Rabbi Parnakh said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 岣yya 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.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讚专讬砖 砖讬诇讗 讗讬砖 讻驻专 转诪专转讗 转诇转 诪转谞讬转讗 讜转专转讬 砖诪注转转讗 砖讬注讜专讗 讟驻讞 转专转讬 讞讚讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讝讜讘 讟驻讞
Rabbi 岣nina 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鈥檌m, 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鈥檌m 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 岣yya. Abaye says: Revise the wording of that statement, so that it should not read that Rabbi 岣yya taught a baraita; rather, say that Rabbi 岣yya says himself that the hyssop must measure at least one handbreadth, i.e., that halakha is not taught in a baraita.
讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讟驻讞 注诇 讟驻讞 注诇 专讜诐 讟驻讞 诪专讜讘注 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讞讜爪抓 讘驻谞讬 讛讟讜诪讗讛
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鈥檛 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.
讟驻讞 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讟驻讞 注诇 讟驻讞 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬谞谉
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.
讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讘谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛转谞讜专 讟驻讞 讜诪谉 讛讻讬专讛 砖诇砖 讗爪讘注讜转 讞讘讜专
The Gemara further asks: But isn鈥檛 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.
讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讘爪讬专 诪讟驻讞 诇讗 讞讝讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讘爪讬专 诪讟驻讞 讬讚 转谞讜专 讛讜讗
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.
讜讛讗讬讻讗
The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 there
转谞讜专讬 讘谞讜转 讟驻讞 讚转谞讬讗 转谞讜专 转讞诇转讜 讗专讘注讛 讜砖讬专讬讜 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专
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.
讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讙讚讜诇 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谉 转讞诇转讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪砖转讙诪专 诪诇讗讻转讜 讜砖讬专讬讜 讘专讜讘讜
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.
讜讻诪讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讟驻讞 砖讻谉 注讜砖讬谉 转谞讜专讬 讘谞讜转 讟驻讞 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬
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.
讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 驻诇讜讙转讗 讛讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讟驻讞 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛转谞讜专 讜诇讻讜转诇
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.
讜讛讗讬讻讗 诪住讙专转 讟驻讞 讘讚讻转讬讘谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讻驻讜专转 讟驻讞 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.
讜讛讗讬讻讗 讚讬讛 诇拽讜专讛 砖讛讬讗 专讞讘讛 讟驻讞 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬 讗诇讗 讘讚讻转讬讘谉 讜诇讗 诪驻专砖讬 砖讬注讜专讬讬讛讜
The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.
讬转讬讘 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 转讜诇讬谉 讗转 讛砖诇讬讗 讘讜诇讚 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专
搂 Rav Yitz岣k 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.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 诪转注讻讘 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 讻诇讜诐 讗讬砖转讬拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讻讗谉 讘谞驻诇 讻讗谉 讘讘谉 拽讬讬诪讗
Rav Kahana said to Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel: And did Rav say this? But didn鈥檛 Rav say that an offspring does not remain in the womb at all after another offspring was born? Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel was silent. Rav Kahana said to him: Perhaps there is no contradiction between Rav鈥檚 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.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 讗诪专转 诇砖诪注转转讬讛 讚专讘 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讛驻讬诇讛 谞驻诇 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛驻讬诇讛 砖诇讬讗 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 转讜诇讬谉 讗转 讛砖诇讬讗 讘讜诇讚 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专 讬诇讚讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛驻讬诇讛 砖诇讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专
Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel said to him: Are you the one who says this explanation of Rav鈥檚 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.
砖诪讜讗诇 讜转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讞诇讬祝 讜讗讝讬诇 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 诪讚讜讬诇 诇讗驻讬讬讛讜 讘讗诇讬 讜讗转讬 讗诪专 讗转讬 诇谉 讙讘专讗 讚专诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘讙讬诇讗 讚讞讟转讗 讜诪专诪讬 讜诪讚讞讬
The Gemara relates: Shmuel, Rav鈥檚 students, and Rav Yehuda were sitting together. Rav Yosef, son of Rav Menashya of D鈥檝il, 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.
讗讚讛讻讬 讗转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖诇讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 讗转 讛砖诇讬讗 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 砖诇 拽讬讬诪讗 砖讬讬诇讬谞讛讜 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讻诇 转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛讚专 讞讝讬讬讛 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬砖讜转
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鈥檚 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鈥檚 death.
讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 诪专讘讬 讛诪驻诇转 讚诪讜转 注讜专讘 讜砖诇讬讗 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘诪讬谞讜 砖诇讬讗
搂 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.
拽砖讜专讛 讘讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讗诇转 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛诪驻诇转 诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讜砖诇讬讗 注诪讛谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讛砖诇讬讗 拽砖讜专讛 注诪讛谉 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专 讗讬谉 砖诇讬讗 拽砖讜专讛 注诪讛谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专 讛专讬谞讬 诪讟讬诇 注诇讬讛谉
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
-
This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!
Niddah 26
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
讙讘讬 讘讻讜专讜转 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗
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.
诇讘讗 讗讞专讬讜 讘讻讜专 诇谞讞诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讘讻讜专 诇讻讛谉
The Gemara answers: That halakha is relevant for a case where the sandal fetus鈥檚 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.
住谞讚诇 讚转谞谉 讙讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗
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.
砖讗诐 转诇讚 讜诇讚 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉 讜住谞讚诇 讚专讱 专讞诐 讚诪讬讬转讗 拽专讘谉 讗住谞讚诇
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.
讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讬讜爪讗 讚专讱 讚讜驻谉 讜诇讚 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专
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?
讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 砖讗诐 转诇讚 讜诇讚 讘讛讬讜转讛 讙讜讬讛 讜住谞讚诇 诇讗讞专 砖谞转讙讬讬专讛 讚诪讬讬转讗 拽专讘谉 讗住谞讚诇
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.
讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讬 讗讬转谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 砖讬谞讜讬讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻砖讛谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讗诇讗 讻专讜讻讬谉
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鈥檛 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?
讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讻专讱 讻专讬讱 诇讬讛 讜诇讚 诇住谞讚诇 讗驻诇讙讬讛 讜诪砖诇讞讬祝 诇讬讛 讻诇驻讬 专讬砖讬讛 讙讘讬 讘讻讜专讜转 讻讙讜谉 砖讬爪讗讜 讚专讱 专讗砖讬讛诐 讚住谞讚诇 拽讚讬诐 讜谞驻讬拽 讙讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 砖讬爪讗讜 讚专讱 诪专讙诇讜转讬讛诐 讚讜诇讚 拽讚讬诐 讜谞驻讬拽
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.
专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诪爪讜诪爪诪讬谉 讜讗讬驻讜讱 砖诪注转转讗 讙讘讬 讘讻讜专讜转 砖讬爪讗讜 讚专讱 诪专讙诇讜转讬讛诐 讜诇讚 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讞讬讜转讗 住专讬讱 讜诇讗 谞驻讬拽 住谞讚诇 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 讞讬讜转讗 砖专讬拽 讜谞驻讬拽 讙讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 砖讬爪讗讜 讚专讱 专讗砖讬讛谉 讜诇讚 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讞讬讜转讗 诪讚谞驻讬拽 专讬砖讬讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讚讛 住谞讚诇 注讚 讚谞驻讬拽 专讜讘讬讛
Rav Huna bar Ta岣ifa 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鈥檚 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.
诪转谞讬壮 砖诇讬讗 讘讘讬转 讛讘讬转 讟诪讗 诇讗 砖讛砖诇讬讗 讜诇讚 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 砖诇讬讗 讘诇讗 讜诇讚
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.
专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 谞讬诪讜拽 讛讜诇讚 注讚 砖诇讗 讬爪讗
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.
讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇讬讗 转讞诇转讛 讚讜诪讛 诇讞讜讟 砖诇 注专讘 讜住讜驻讛 讚讜诪讛 讻转讜专诪讜住 讜讞诇讜诇讛 讻讞爪讜爪专转 讜讗讬谉 砖诇讬讗 驻讞讜转讛 诪讟驻讞 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬讗 讚讜诪讛 诇拽讜专拽讘谉 砖诇 转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 砖讛讚拽讬谉 讬讜爪讗讬谉 诪诪谞讛
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.
转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讝注讬专讗 讚诪谉 讞讘专讬讗 讞诪砖讛 砖讬注讜专谉 讟驻讞 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 砖诇讬讗 砖讜驻专 砖讚专讛 讚讜驻谉 住讜讻讛 讜讛讗讝讜讘
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鈥檈ira] of the company [demin 岣vrayya] 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鈥檈zov]. 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.
砖诇讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 砖讜驻专 讚转谞讬讗 讻诪讛 讬讛讗 砖讬注讜专 砖讜驻专 驻讬专砖 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讻讚讬 砖讬讗讞讝谞讜 讘讬讚讜 讜讬专讗讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 讟驻讞
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.
砖讚专讛 诪讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 驻专谞讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讚专讜 砖诇 诇讜诇讘 爪专讬讱 砖讬讛讗 讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛讛讚住 讟驻讞 讚讜驻谉 住讜讻讛 讚转谞讬讗 砖转讬诐 讻讛诇讻转谉 砖诇讬砖讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 讟驻讞 讗讝讜讘 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讝讜讘 讟驻讞
What is the halakha with regard to a spine of a lulav? It is as Rabbi Parnakh said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 岣yya 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.
讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 驻驻讗 讚专讬砖 砖讬诇讗 讗讬砖 讻驻专 转诪专转讗 转诇转 诪转谞讬转讗 讜转专转讬 砖诪注转转讗 砖讬注讜专讗 讟驻讞 转专转讬 讞讚讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讝讜讘 讟驻讞
Rabbi 岣nina 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鈥檌m, 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鈥檌m 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 岣yya. Abaye says: Revise the wording of that statement, so that it should not read that Rabbi 岣yya taught a baraita; rather, say that Rabbi 岣yya says himself that the hyssop must measure at least one handbreadth, i.e., that halakha is not taught in a baraita.
讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讟驻讞 注诇 讟驻讞 注诇 专讜诐 讟驻讞 诪专讜讘注 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讞讜爪抓 讘驻谞讬 讛讟讜诪讗讛
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鈥檛 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.
讟驻讞 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讟驻讞 注诇 讟驻讞 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬谞谉
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.
讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讘谉 讛讬讜爪讗 诪谉 讛转谞讜专 讟驻讞 讜诪谉 讛讻讬专讛 砖诇砖 讗爪讘注讜转 讞讘讜专
The Gemara further asks: But isn鈥檛 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.
讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讘爪讬专 诪讟驻讞 诇讗 讞讝讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讘爪讬专 诪讟驻讞 讬讚 转谞讜专 讛讜讗
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.
讜讛讗讬讻讗
The Gemara asks: But aren鈥檛 there
转谞讜专讬 讘谞讜转 讟驻讞 讚转谞讬讗 转谞讜专 转讞诇转讜 讗专讘注讛 讜砖讬专讬讜 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专
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.
讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讙讚讜诇 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谉 转讞诇转讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪砖转讙诪专 诪诇讗讻转讜 讜砖讬专讬讜 讘专讜讘讜
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.
讜讻诪讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讟驻讞 砖讻谉 注讜砖讬谉 转谞讜专讬 讘谞讜转 讟驻讞 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬
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.
讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 驻诇讜讙转讗 讛讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讟驻讞 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛转谞讜专 讜诇讻讜转诇
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.
讜讛讗讬讻讗 诪住讙专转 讟驻讞 讘讚讻转讬讘谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讻驻讜专转 讟驻讞 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.
讜讛讗讬讻讗 讚讬讛 诇拽讜专讛 砖讛讬讗 专讞讘讛 讟驻讞 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬 讗诇讗 讘讚讻转讬讘谉 讜诇讗 诪驻专砖讬 砖讬注讜专讬讬讛讜
The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.
讬转讬讘 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 诪专转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 转讜诇讬谉 讗转 讛砖诇讬讗 讘讜诇讚 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专
搂 Rav Yitz岣k 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.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 诪转注讻讘 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 讻诇讜诐 讗讬砖转讬拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讻讗谉 讘谞驻诇 讻讗谉 讘讘谉 拽讬讬诪讗
Rav Kahana said to Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel: And did Rav say this? But didn鈥檛 Rav say that an offspring does not remain in the womb at all after another offspring was born? Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel was silent. Rav Kahana said to him: Perhaps there is no contradiction between Rav鈥檚 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.
讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 讗诪专转 诇砖诪注转转讬讛 讚专讘 讘驻讬专讜砖 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讛驻讬诇讛 谞驻诇 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛驻讬诇讛 砖诇讬讗 讻诇 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 转讜诇讬谉 讗转 讛砖诇讬讗 讘讜诇讚 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专 讬诇讚讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛驻讬诇讛 砖诇讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专
Rav Yitz岣k bar Shmuel said to him: Are you the one who says this explanation of Rav鈥檚 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.
砖诪讜讗诇 讜转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 讞诇讬祝 讜讗讝讬诇 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪谞砖讬讗 诪讚讜讬诇 诇讗驻讬讬讛讜 讘讗诇讬 讜讗转讬 讗诪专 讗转讬 诇谉 讙讘专讗 讚专诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘讙讬诇讗 讚讞讟转讗 讜诪专诪讬 讜诪讚讞讬
The Gemara relates: Shmuel, Rav鈥檚 students, and Rav Yehuda were sitting together. Rav Yosef, son of Rav Menashya of D鈥檝il, 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.
讗讚讛讻讬 讗转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖诇讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 讗转 讛砖诇讬讗 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 砖诇 拽讬讬诪讗 砖讬讬诇讬谞讛讜 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讻诇 转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛讚专 讞讝讬讬讛 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬砖讜转
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鈥檚 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鈥檚 death.
讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 诪专讘讬 讛诪驻诇转 讚诪讜转 注讜专讘 讜砖诇讬讗 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 转讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘诪讬谞讜 砖诇讬讗
搂 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.
拽砖讜专讛 讘讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讗诇转 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛诪驻诇转 诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讜砖诇讬讗 注诪讛谉 讘讝诪谉 砖讛砖诇讬讗 拽砖讜专讛 注诪讛谉 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专 讗讬谉 砖诇讬讗 拽砖讜专讛 注诪讛谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讜诇讚 讗讞专 讛专讬谞讬 诪讟讬诇 注诇讬讛谉
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
