נדה כז

נדה כז

חוֹמֶר שְׁנֵי וְלָדוֹת, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר שֶׁמָּא נִמּוֹחַ שָׁפִיר שֶׁל שִׁלְיָא וְנִמּוֹחָה שִׁלְיָא שֶׁל שָׁפִיר. תְּיוּבְתָּא.

the stringency of two offspring, as I say: Perhaps the gestational sac of this afterbirth, which contained the offspring, disintegrated, and the afterbirth of the gestational sac containing the fetus shaped like an animal also disintegrated. If so, there are two offspring, and as it is possible that one is male and the other female, the mother must observe the strictures of one who gave birth to both a male and a female. In any event, this baraita is a conclusive refutation of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s claim that it is impossible for an afterbirth to be tied to a fetus that has the form of a bird.

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא, אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה, אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַעֲשֶׂה וְתָלוּ אֶת הַשִּׁלְיָא בַּוָּלָד עַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ תּוֹלִין אֶלָּא בְּשִׁלְיָא הַבָּאָה אַחַר הַוָּלָד.

§ Rabba bar Sheila says that Rav Mattana says that Shmuel says: An incident occurred where the Sages attributed the afterbirth that a woman discharged to an offspring that was born up to ten days beforehand. And Shmuel added that the Sages said that one attributes an afterbirth to an offspring that was born only in the case of an afterbirth that emerges after the offspring is born. By contrast, an afterbirth that emerges before the offspring is born is not attributed to that offspring.

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַעֲשֶׂה וְתָלוּ אֶת הַשִּׁלְיָא בַּוָּלָד, עַד עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: עַד עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה אָמְרַתְּ לַן.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There was an incident where the Sages attributed the afterbirth to an offspring that was born up to twenty-three days beforehand. Rav Yosef said to him a correction of his statement: You said to us on another occasion that the offspring was born up to twenty-four days beforehand.

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב עַוִּירָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁתַּהָה הַוָּלָד אַחַר חֲבֵירוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה יוֹם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאַרְבָּעָה אָמְרַתְּ לַן.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avira, says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: There was an incident where a woman was pregnant with twins, and one offspring remained in the womb for thirty-three days after the other offspring was born. Rav Yosef said to him: You said to us on another occasion that the second offspring was born thirty-four days after the first.

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יוֹלֶדֶת לְתִשְׁעָה יוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ אֶחָד נִגְמְרָה צוּרָתוֹ לְסוֹף שִׁבְעָה, וְאֶחָד נִגְמְרָה צוּרָתוֹ לִתְחִלַּת תִּשְׁעָה. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יוֹלֶדֶת לְתִשְׁעָה אֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת לִמְקוּטָּעִין, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that if a woman gives birth to a baby in her ninth month, she can give birth prematurely (see Rosh HaShana 11a). You find a situation where there could be such a difference between the births of the two twins if the form of one of the twin fetuses was completed at the end of the seventh month, and it is born at that stage, and the form of the other one was completed at the beginning of the ninth month, and it is born then. In such a case, there can be a difference of thirty-four days between the births. But according to the one who says that a woman who gives birth to a baby in her ninth month cannot give birth prematurely, but rather she gives birth at the end of the ninth month, what is there to say?

אֵיפוֹךְ שְׁמַעְתָּתָא: שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה — לְשִׁלְיָא, עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה — לְוָלָד.

The Gemara answers that one should reverse the statements: The difference of thirty-three days was stated with regard to a case of an afterbirth that was discharged an extended period after the birth of the offspring, whereas the gap of twenty-three days was stated with regard to a case of an offspring that was born after its twin.

אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין בַּר רַב אַדָּא, אָמַר רַב מְנַחֵם אִישׁ כְּפַר שְׁעָרִים, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בֵּית שְׁעָרִים: מַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁתַּהָה וָלָד אֶחָד אַחַר חֲבֵירוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, וַהֲרֵי הֵם יוֹשְׁבִים לְפָנֵינוּ בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. וּמַאן נִינְהוּ? יְהוּדָה וְחִזְקִיָּה בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא.

Rabbi Avin bar Rav Adda says that Rav Menaḥem of the village of She’arim, and some say that he was from Beit She’arim, says: An incident occurred where one offspring remained in the womb after the other was born for three months, and both twins are sitting before us in the study hall. And who are they? They are Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya, the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya.

וְהָא אָמַר מָר: אֵין אִשָּׁה מִתְעַבֶּרֶת וְחוֹזֶרֶת וּמִתְעַבֶּרֶת! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: טִיפָּה אַחַת הָיְתָה וְנִתְחַלְּקָה לִשְׁתַּיִם, אֶחָד נִגְמְרָה צוּרָתוֹ בִּתְחִלַּת שִׁבְעָה, וְאֶחָד בְּסוֹף תִּשְׁעָה.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t the Master say that a woman cannot become pregnant and again become pregnant with another offspring while she is pregnant with the first? Abaye says: Both twins were conceived at the same time; it was one drop of semen and it split into two. The form of one was completed at the beginning of the seventh month, and the form of the other one was completed at the end of the ninth month.

שִׁלְיָא בַּבַּיִת — הַבַּיִת טָמֵא. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שִׁלְיָא בַּבַּיִת — הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, לֹא שֶׁהַשִּׁלְיָא וָלָד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין שִׁלְיָא שֶׁאֵין וָלָד עִמָּהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֲרִין.

§ The mishna teaches that if there is an afterbirth in the house, the house is impure in the sense that everything under the roof contracts impurity imparted by a corpse. The Sages taught in a baraita: If there is an afterbirth in the house, the house is impure. 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, and the offspring rendered the contents of the house impure. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon deem the contents of the house pure.

אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: אִי אַתָּה מוֹדֶה שֶׁאִם הוֹצִיאוּהוּ בְּסֵפֶל לַבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן, שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר? אָמַר לָהֶן: אֲבָל. וְלָמָּה? לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ.

These Sages said to Rabbi Meir: Do you not concede that if people removed the afterbirth to the outer room of the house in a basin, that the room is pure? Rabbi Meir said to them in response: Indeed, that room is pure; but why so? Because the offspring does not exist anymore, i.e., it presumably disintegrated while it was moved from place to place.

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ בַּבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן, כָּךְ אֵינוֹ בַּבַּיִת הַפְּנִימִי! אָמַר לָהֶן: אֵינוֹ דּוֹמֶה נִמּוֹק פַּעַם אַחַת, לְנִמּוֹק שְׁתֵּי פְּעָמִים.

These Sages said to him: Just as the offspring does not exist when the afterbirth is moved to the outer room, so too, it does not exist when the afterbirth is in the inner room either. In other words, the offspring presumably disintegrated while it was moved from the woman’s womb to the place in the house where it is located. Rabbi Meir said to them: A situation in which the offspring disintegrated once, when the afterbirth was moved to its first location in the house, is not comparable to a case where the offspring disintegrated twice, i.e., when the afterbirth was first moved to the interior room of the house and then moved to the outer room.

יָתֵיב רַב פָּפָּא אֲחוֹרֵי דְּרַב בִּיבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הַמְנוּנָא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? קָסָבַר כׇּל טוּמְאָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בָּהּ מִמִּין אַחֵר — בְּטֵלָה.

§ Rav Pappa sat behind Rav Beivai in the study hall before their teacher Rav Hamnuna, and he sat and said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that a house in which there is an afterbirth is pure? He holds that with regard to any item that has ritual impurity with which there was mixed an item of another type, it is nullified by the other item and is pure. Consequently, in the case of an offspring that disintegrated, the disintegrated offspring is nullified by the blood of the childbirth.

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב פָּפָּא: הַיְינוּ נָמֵי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אַחִיכוּ עֲלֵיהּ, מַאי שְׁנָא? פְּשִׁיטָא!

Rav Pappa said to Rav Beivai, who was a greater scholar than he, and to Rav Hamnuna his teacher: This is also the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, who agree with Rabbi Shimon in the above baraita. Rav Beivai and Rav Hamnuna laughed at him: What is different about the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei? Since the statement of Rabbi Shimon is attributed to them as well, it is obvious that their reasoning is the same.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אֲפִילּוּ כִּי הָא מִילְּתָא לֵימָא אִינִישׁ, וְלָא נִשְׁתּוֹק קַמֵּיהּ רַבֵּיהּ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִם נָבַלְתָּ בְהִתְנַשֵּׂא וְאִם זַמּוֹתָ יָד לְפֶה״.

Rav Pappa said with regard to this incident: A person should say a matter even as obvious as this one, and one should not be silent in the presence of his teacher, despite the possibility that other people might laugh at him, because it is stated: “If you have done foolishly in lifting up yourself, or if you have planned devices [zammota], lay your hand over your mouth” (Proverbs 30:32). One who acts “foolishly” over matters of Torah by not hesitating to issue statements that might be ridiculed will ultimately be exalted and lifted up. Conversely, one who muzzles [zamam] himself due to embarrassment will end up with his hand over his mouth, unable to answer questions that are posed to him.

וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: מְלֹא תַּרְוָד רָקָב שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכוֹ עָפָר כֹּל שֶׁהוּ — טָמֵא, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.

With regard to Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that the woman is pure because the offspring is nullified by the blood of childbirth, the Gemara notes: And Rabbi Shimon follows his standard line of reasoning, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a ladleful [melo tarvad] of dust from a corpse, which is the minimum amount that renders everything in a house impure, into which any amount of dirt fell, the house is impure; and Rabbi Shimon deems it pure.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר רַבָּה: אַשְׁכַּחְתִּינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּבֵי רַב דְּיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי, אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יִרְבּוּ שְׁתֵּי פְּרִידוֹת עָפָר עַל פְּרִידָה אַחַת שֶׁל רָקָב, וְחָסַיר לֵיהּ.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Why is the house pure when it contains a ladleful of dust from a corpse? Rabba said: I found the Sages of the study hall of Rav sitting and saying: The reason Rabbi Shimon deems the house pure is that it is impossible for there not to be two grains of dirt that are more than one grain of dust from the corpse, in a certain place in the mixture. And as that grain of dust from the corpse is nullified by the dirt, the amount of dust that remains is insufficient for rendering the house impure.

וְאָמֵינָא לְהוּ: אַדְּרַבָּה, אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יִרְבּוּ שְׁתֵּי פְּרִידוֹת רָקָב עַל

And I said to them: On the contrary, according to this reasoning the house should certainly be impure, as it is impossible for there not to be two grains of dust from the corpse that are more than

פְּרִידָה אַחַת עָפָר, וְנָפֵיל לֵיהּ שִׁיעוּרָא!

one grain of dirt in a certain place in the mixture. That grain of dirt is thereby nullified by the dust of the corpse, and consequently the measure of the dust increases.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, סוֹפוֹ כִּתְחִלָּתוֹ — מָה תְּחִלָּתוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה לוֹ דָּבָר אַחֵר גַּנְגִּילוֹן, אַף סוֹפוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה לוֹ דָּבָר אַחֵר גַּנְגִּילוֹן.

Rather, Rabba said that this is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: The halakha with regard to a corpse in its ultimate state of dust is like the halakha in its initial state of decomposition: Just as with regard to its initial state, if another matter is mixed with the decomposing corpse it serves as a nullification [gangilon] of the corpse’s impurity, as the dust of a decomposed corpse can impart impurity only if it is not mingled with the dust of any other substance, so too, in the corpse’s ultimate state of dust, if another matter is mixed with it, that serves as a nullification of the impurity of the dust.

מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ מֵת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ רָקָב, וְאֵיזֶהוּ מֵת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ רָקָב? נִקְבַּר עָרוֹם בְּאָרוֹן שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ אוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי רִצְפָּה שֶׁל אֲבָנִים — זֶהוּ מֵת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ רָקָב.

The Gemara asks: What is the source for the halakha that the dust of a corpse imparts impurity only if it is not mingled with the dust of any other substance? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: Which is a corpse that has the halakha of dust, i.e., whose dust imparts impurity; and which is a corpse that does not have the halakha of dust? If a corpse was buried naked in a marble coffin or on a stone floor, that is a corpse that has the halakha of dust that imparts impurity. Since any dust found there must have come from the corpse, it imparts impurity.

וְאֵיזֶהוּ מֵת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ רָקָב? נִקְבַּר בִּכְסוּתוֹ, אוֹ בְּאָרוֹן שֶׁל עֵץ, אוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי רִצְפָּה שֶׁל לְבֵנִים — זֶהוּ מֵת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ רָקָב. וְלֹא אָמְרוּ רָקָב אֶלָּא לְמֵת בִּלְבַד, לְמַעוֹטֵי הָרוּג דְּלָא.

And what is a corpse that does not have the halakha of dust? If a corpse was buried in its cloak, or in a wooden coffin, or on a brick floor, that is a corpse that does not have the halakha of dust that imparts impurity, as it is assumed that some of the dust is from particles of the clothes, wood, or bricks, and the dust from a decomposed corpse imparts impurity only if it is not mingled with the dust of any other substance. The baraita adds another halakha with regard to the impurity of the dust of a corpse: And the Sages said that the dust of a corpse is impure only with regard to the corpse of a person who died naturally, excluding one who was killed, whose dust is not impure.

גּוּפָא: מְלֹא תַּרְוָד רָקָב שֶׁנָּפַל לְתוֹכוֹ עָפָר כֹּל שֶׁהוּא — טָמֵא, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר. מְלֹא תַּרְוָד רָקָב שֶׁנִּתְפַּזֵּר בַּבַּיִת — הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.

§ The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself, i.e., the baraita cited above that clarifies the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: In the case of a ladleful of dust from a corpse into which any amount of dirt fell, the house is impure; and Rabbi Shimon deems it pure. The baraita continues: In the case of a ladleful of dust from a corpse that was scattered in the house, the house is impure. Provided that there is a sufficient amount of dust in the house, the house is impure, even if the dust is scattered. And Rabbi Shimon deems it pure.

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן קַמַּיְיתָא — בְּהַהִיא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן מִשּׁוּם דְּמִכְּנִיף, אֲבָל נִתְפַּזֵּר — אֵימָא מוֹדוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאֵין מַאֲהִיל וְחוֹזֵר וּמַאֲהִיל.

The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the baraita to state both of these halakhot. As, if the baraita had taught us only the first halakha, with regard to dust from a corpse in which dirt was mixed, one might have thought that it is specifically in that case that the Rabbis say the house is impure, because the dust is concentrated in one place; but if the dust was scattered, one might say that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Shimon that the house is pure. The reasoning is that if an item overlies a collection of dust of a corpse that is insufficient to render it impure and also overlies another collection of similar size, where together these collections constitute a sufficient amount to render the item and everything under it impure, it is not impure.

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן בְּהָא — בְּהָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאֵין מַאֲהִיל וְחוֹזֵר וּמַאֲהִיל, אֲבָל בְּהָא — אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן, צְרִיכָא.

And if the baraita had taught us the halakha only with regard to this second case, where the dust of the corpse was scattered, one might have thought that it is specifically in this case that Rabbi Shimon says that the house is pure, as an item that overlies an insufficient collection of the dust of a corpse and also overlies another collection, where together these collections constitute a sufficient amount to render the item impure, is not impure. But in that first case, where dirt was mixed with the dust of the corpse, one might say that Rabbi Shimon concedes to the Rabbis that the house is impure. Therefore, it is necessary for the baraita to teach both cases.

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: מְלֹא תַּרְוָד וְעוֹד עֲפַר בֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת — טָמֵא, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר. מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? לְפִי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִמְלֹא תַּרְוָד וְעוֹד עֲפַר בֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מְלֹא תַּרְוָד רָקָב.

There is a different dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis that is taught in another mishna (Oholot 2:2): If a house contains a ladleful of dirt from a cemetery and slightly more, the house is impure; and Rabbi Shimon deems it pure. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis? The Gemara answers: They deem the house impure as it is impossible for slightly more than a ladleful of dirt from a cemetery not to contain a ladleful of dust from a corpse.

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִשּׁוּם סוֹפוֹ כִּתְחִלָּתוֹ, גַּבֵּי שִׁלְיָא מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשּׁוּם בִּטּוּל בְּרוֹב נָגְעוּ בָּהּ.

§ The Gemara asks: Now that you say that the reason that Rabbi Shimon deems the house pure, in a case where it contains dust from a corpse in which dirt was mixed, is that in his opinion the halakha of a corpse in its ultimate state of dust is like the halakha in its initial state of decomposition, then with regard to a case where there is an afterbirth in the house, what is the reason that Rabbi Shimon deems the house pure? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Sages touched upon it, i.e., deemed the house pure, due to the nullification of the disintegrated offspring by the majority of the blood that emerged during the miscarriage, in which the afterbirth was mixed.

וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה שֶׁשָּׁפְעָה חֲרָרַת דָּם, הֲרֵי זוֹ תִּקָּבֵר, וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his line of reasoning in this regard, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov both said the same thing, i.e., they both issued rulings based on the same principle. The relevant statement of Rabbi Shimon is that which we said, i.e., that if a woman discharged an afterbirth the house is pure, as the offspring is nullified by the blood that emerged during the miscarriage. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov said that which is taught in a mishna (Bekhorot 21a): Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: In the case of a large animal that expelled a mass of congealed blood, that mass must be buried, as perhaps there was a male fetus there, which was consecrated as a firstborn when it emerged, and the animal is exempt from having any future offspring being counted a firstborn.

וְתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא עֲלַהּ: אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לֹא בְּמַגָּע וְלֹא בְּמַשָּׂא, וּמֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לֹא בְּמַגָּע וְלֹא בְּמַשָּׂא, אַמַּאי תִּקָּבֵר? כְּדֵי לְפַרְסְמָהּ שֶׁהִיא פְּטוּרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה.

And Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches a baraita with regard to that halakha: The mass of congealed blood does not impart ritual impurity, neither through physical contact nor through carrying it. It does not have the status of an unslaughtered animal carcass, which does impart impurity in such manners. The Gemara asks: But since the mass does not impart impurity, neither through contact nor through carrying, which indicates that it is not considered a fetus, why must it be buried? The Gemara answers: It must be buried in order to publicize that the animal is exempt from having its future offspring being counted a firstborn.

אַלְמָא וָלָד מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, וְאַמַּאי תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לֹא בְּמַגָּע וְלֹא בְּמַשָּׂא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשּׁוּם בִּטּוּל בְּרוֹב נָגְעוּ בָּהּ.

The Gemara asks: If the animal’s subsequent offspring is not counted a firstborn, evidently the mass is treated like a full-fledged offspring. But if so, why does Rabbi Ḥiyya teach that it does not impart impurity, neither through physical contact nor through carrying? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is due to the halakhic nullification of a foreign substance in a majority of permitted substances that the Sages touched upon it, to exclude it from impurity through contact or carrying. In other words, the fetus is considered a full-fledged offspring, but it does not impart impurity, because it is nullified by the rest of the congealed mass.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁאִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה.

§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that if a woman discharges an afterbirth in a house, the house is pure. Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And Rabbi Shimon concedes that its mother is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth.

אָמַר הָהוּא סָבָא לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי: אַסְבְּרַהּ לָךְ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר וְגוֹ׳״, אֲפִילּוּ לֹא יָלְדָה אֶלָּא כְּעֵין שֶׁהִזְרִיעָה — טְמֵאָה לֵידָה.

A certain elder said to Rabbi Ami: I will explain to you the reason for the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan. As the verse states: “If a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, she shall be impure seven days, as in the days of the menstruation of her sickness she shall be impure” (Leviticus 12:2). This indicates that even if a woman gives birth to an offspring that is similar only to the seed that she bore, i.e., if the offspring liquefied and became similar to semen, the woman is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth.

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: שָׁפִיר שֶׁטְּרָפוּהוּ בְּמֵימָיו — נַעֲשֶׂה כְּמֵת שֶׁנִּתְבַּלְבְּלָה צוּרָתוֹ.

§ Reish Lakish says: In the case of a fetus in a gestational sac, that was mashed in its amniotic fluid by being shaken violently, it is rendered like a corpse that was deformed, and therefore it does not impart impurity to other items that are under the same roof.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מֵת שֶׁנִּתְבַּלְבְּלָה צוּרָתוֹ מְנָלַן דְּטָהוֹר? אִילֵּימָא מֵהָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שַׁבְּתַאי אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק מַגְדְּלָאָה, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק מַגְדְּלָאָה אָמַר רַבִּי שַׁבְּתַאי: מֵת שֶׁנִּשְׂרַף וְשִׁלְדּוֹ קַיֶּימֶת טָמֵא, מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה וְטִמְּאוּ לוֹ פְּתָחִים גְּדוֹלִים

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: From where do we derive that a corpse that was deformed is pure? If we say it is derived from that which Rabbi Shabbtai says that Rabbi Yitzḥak from Migdal [Migdala’a] says, and some say from that which Rabbi Yitzḥak from Migdal says that Rabbi Shabbtai says, that cannot be correct. The Gemara cites the relevant statement: With regard to a corpse that was burned but its form [veshildo] still exists, i.e., it still has the form of a human corpse, it is impure. There was an incident involving such a corpse, and the Sages deemed impure all items that were under the large openings of the house where the corpse was located, as these openings were fit for the removal of the corpse from the house through them.