Bekhorot 22a (כב.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer: The reason they bury it is not due to the sanctity of a firstborn, but

in order to publicize that it has been exempted from the sanctity of a firstborn

, for if this were not a fetus, they would not bury it; but in truth, it does not have the status of a fetus requiring burial.

We nevertheless challenge this:

Does this mean—

since it is exempted from the sanctity of a firstborn because of the blood clot—

that it is a proper fetus

[an important fetus],

and

if so,

why does it not impart ritual impurity, neither through contact nor through carrying!?

Rabbi Yohanan said: They dealt with it on the basis of nullification by the majority

, for the dissolved fetus contained in the blood clot is nullified by the majority of the birth blood.

And Rabbi Yohanan follows his own reasoning—

that he explained the reason of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov on the basis of nullification by the majority—

as Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and Rabbi Shimon stated the same matter: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

—that is,

this is what we said

, that the flesh is nullified by the majority.

What is the case of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned:

With regard to the afterbirth

that a woman expelled

in a house

,

the house is impure

due to the tent of the corpse,

not

because

the afterbirth

itself is a

fetus

that imparts impurity,

but because there is no afterbirth without a fetus

; rather, the fetus dissolved, and even though it dissolved, it still imparts impurity.

Rabbi Shimon says:

It had already

dissolved before it emerged

, and therefore it does not impart impurity, because it is nullified by the majority of the birth blood, which is greater than it and nullifies it.

We learned there

in tractate Oholot 7:4:

a. If a woman’s fetus died inside her, and she sat on the birthing stool and the opening of the womb was opened in this house, but the fetus did not emerge there, and they carried her to another house, where she gave birth, the first house is impure as though she had given birth there, because the impurity breaks through by way of the opening of the womb.

b. But

a miscarriage does not have an opening of the womb until

its head becomes as round as a spindle whorl

. That is, if the woman’s fetus has not yet rounded its head and become as thick as a spindle whorl [the Gemara proceeds to explain this], it does not impart impurity by means of the opening of the womb.

And we explain:

What is a spindle whorl?

Rav Huna said: A spindle whorl

[a spinning spindle]

of wool.

.

Hiyya bar Rav said to Rav Huna: Master, explain

to me: Is it a spindle whorl

for the warp

, which is small,

or

a spindle whorl

for the woof

, which is larger?

He said to him

—Rav Huna to Hiyya bar Rav:

It was taught: A spindle whorl for the warp; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: A spindle whorl

Rabbi Yehuda says

for the woof.

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: Even if the miscarried fetuses have not become as round as a spindle whorl,

.

if

the womb has opened so far that

folds are visible

within it, the fetus imparts impurity.

And we explain:

What are “folds”?

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok: This is how they explained it in Jerusalem: Like a mule that crouches to urinate

, and as a result of crouching its womb opens very widely

and one fold appears within another

[folds are visible in the womb].

Rav Huna said: I heard of two spindle whorls

[two measures measured as a spindle whorl]:

one for the warp and one for the woof, but I cannot explain

with regard to what the measure is a spindle whorl for the warp, and with regard to what the measure is a spindle whorl for the woof.

When Rav Dimi came, he said that Rabbi Yohanan said: I heard of three spindle whorls: one for the warp, one for the woof, and one of the large spindle whorl of the sack-makers

[the Gemara proceeds to explain it],

but I cannot explain.

When Ravin came, he explained it in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

A woman’s

measure is

like

a spindle whorl

for the warp

with regard to impurity conveyed by a tent, as we learned above: a miscarriage does not have an opening of the womb until its head becomes as round as a spindle whorl. This spindle whorl is the one for the warp, in accordance with Rabbi Meir’s opinion in the beraita above.

An animal’s

measure is

like that of the woof

, and this concerns what we learned in Hullin 70b: If an animal’s fetus died inside its womb, and the shepherd extended his hand and touched it, he remains pure, because it is concealed impurity. Once the fetus’s head becomes as round as a spindle whorl for the woof, it imparts impurity.

The large spindle whorl of the sack-makers, as we learned:

A clod that comes from a beit haperas

[a field in which a grave was plowed, whose soil imparts impurity by rabbinic decree], and a clod that comes

from the lands of the nations

[concerning which the Sages decreed impurity],

its measure

for imparting impurity is

like a large spindle whorl of the sack-makers,

which is like the seal of the sack-carriers

[the size of that spindle whorl is like the size of the seal made for large sacks of rushes],

and it is found on the upper side of the cover of the Bethlehem barrel

[the size of that spindle whorl and that seal is like the knob that serves as the handle of the cover of a barrel made in Bethlehem].

Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia:

One who purchases brine

[which emerges from fish when they are salted, and is mixed with water]

from an am ha-aretz

, whose contact imparts impurity,

immerses it in water, and it becomes pure

, [he places the brine in a cup and immerses it in a mikveh; once the mikveh water touches the brine in the cup, the brine becomes pure]. For

whatever the case:

If the water is the majority, since he immersed it, it becomes pure

[if the water is the majority, it has the status of water, and immersion is effective in purifying it].

And if the brine is the majority

, then

brine is not susceptible to ritual impurity.

Rather,

what is there to be concerned about?

Because of those minority quantities of water

,

they are nullified by the majority

[and if the majority is brine, so that it bears the status of food and immersion cannot purify it, it is nevertheless pure, because brine is not susceptible to impurity, as it is not food, while the water is nullified by the majority of brine].

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

This was stated

that the brine becomes pure through immersion

only for dipping into it

one’s

bread, but for

placing the brine in a

pot

containing water—

no

, because

when a species encounters its own species, it is reawakened.

That is, although the minority of water was initially nullified by the majority so that it would not become impure, once the water in the pot joins it and the water becomes the majority over the brine, the water becomes impure again.

Rav Dimi was sitting and reciting this statement. Abaye said

to him in astonishment,

“But”:

Does impurity that was nullified become reawakened!?

He said to him

—Rav Dimi to Abaye:

And can you not understand

that impurity, even after it was nullified, can become reawakened!?