Niddah 26a — the Talmud in English

And alongside the explanation of our Mishna, the Gemara explains why a sandal was mentioned in additional places:

“Sandal,” as we learned ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the page")

concerning firstborns,

for after the birth of the sandal, the offspring born after it is a firstborn with regard to inheritance, but is not a firstborn with regard to the priest, since the sandal is considered the opener of the womb.

For what halakhic purpose

was it written in the Mishna that the offspring born after the sandal is not a firstborn with regard to the obligation of giving five sela to the priest? After all, since there is with it another offspring that is not a sandal, the additional offspring will exempt the womb, and it is obvious that at the next birth the offspring is not a firstborn with regard to the priest?

And the Gemara resolves: The novelty is in that very same birth! If the sandal came out first, the twin offspring coming out with it afterward is not liable with regard to firstborn status, because the sandal is the opener of the womb. Therefore the Mishna taught the novelty

with regard to the one born after it

which is

a firstborn with regard to inheritance

and takes a double portion in the inheritance of their father, but

is not

it

a firstborn with regard to the priest!

The Gemara asks further:

“Sandal,” as we learned concerning offerings,

for which she is liable to bring the offering of a woman who has given birth—

for what halakhic purpose?

After all, in any event she must bring the offering of a woman who has given birth because of the additional offspring?

And it answers: The novelty is

that if she gives birth

to

the offspring

additional one

through the side,

in which case she is exempt from bringing an offering for it, because she did not give birth from the place from which she inseminates, while the

sandal

she gives birth to

through the womb,

in an ordinary birth,

she brings an offering

of a woman who has given birth

for the sandal,

even though she is exempt from bringing an offering for the birth of the offspring that came out through the side.

And the Gemara asks:

And according to Rabbi Shimon, who says, “An offspring coming out through the side is a fully valid offspring,”

and she is liable to bring the offering of a woman who has given birth also for an offspring that came out through the side,

what can be said?

Since she is also liable for a birth through the side, the difficulty returns: even if she is exempt for the birth of the sandal, she should bring an offering for the complete offspring.

And it answers:

Rabbi Yirmeya said: [This is the novelty] if she gives birth to an offspring while she is an idolater,

when she does not become impure through childbirth,

and a sandal

she gives birth to

after she converted,

having immersed for her conversion during the short time between the birth of the offspring and the birth of the sandal .

She brings an offering for the sandal

alone.

The Sages said before Rav Pappa—

and were these resolutions indeed taught

that she immerses in the middle of her birth, between the birth of the offspring and the birth of the sandal, and that the sandal exempts its twin born after it from firstborn status?

But it was taught in a beraita: When they come out,

the sandal and the offspring with it,

they come out only intertwined!

If so, how can she immerse between them? And how does it exempt the second offspring coming out with it from firstborn status, when both of them come out together?

Rav Pappa said: Infer from this

that the offspring and the sandal are not intertwined with one another along the entire length of their bodies; rather,

the offspring is intertwined with the sandal over half of it,

so that the head of the offspring reaches only to the navel of the sandal .

And it pushes it toward its head,

for the offspring pushes the sandal outward with its head, and from the navel upward the sandal is not intertwined with the offspring.

And by this the difficulties are resolved:

concerning firstborns,

where we learned that the sandal exempts the offspring from firstborn status, the case is

for example, when they came out

the sandal and the offspring

through their heads, for the sandal comes first and emerges,

since its upper half, which is not intertwined with the offspring, comes out by itself first. And since the sandal came out first, only it is considered a firstborn with regard to the obligation of giving five sela to the priest, and not the offspring with it.

Concerning offerings,

where we learned that its mother is liable to bring the offering of a woman who has given birth for the sandal, and we established the case as one of a convert who immersed between the birth of the offspring and the birth of the sandal, the case is

that they came out

the sandal and the offspring

through their feet, for the offspring comes first and emerges,

since when they come out feet-first, the feet of the offspring precede the feet of the sandal; and in a case in which she immersed for her conversion after the majority of the offspring had emerged and before the sandal emerged, she is liable to bring an offering only for the sandal.

Rav Huna bar Taḥalifa said in the name of Rava: Even if you say

that the sandal and the offspring were

lying tightly alongside one another,

lying alongside each other along their entire length, it is possible to resolve the matter. However,

reverse the traditions,

so that we reverse the case-establishments of Rav Pappa.

Concerning firstborns—

it is dealing with

their having come out through their feet,

for only the emergence of the majority of the body is considered birth!

An offspring that has vitality clings,

holding itself during birth

and does not emerge

and does not come out immediately, but

a sandal that has no vitality slips,

sliding,

and falls,

and therefore it comes out first, and it is the firstborn.

Concerning offerings—

it is dealing with

their having come out through their heads!

An offspring that has vitality: from the time its head emerges, it is a birth,

as we hold: “If its head came out, it is considered born,” and it is not necessary for the majority of the body to come out. But

a sandal,

although its head emerges at the same time as the head of the offspring, nevertheless, since it has no vitality, the emergence of its head is not called birth, for a head without vitality is like the other limbs; only

until the majority of it emerges

is it considered born. Therefore she can manage to immerse and convert between the emergence of the offspring’s head and the emergence of the majority of the sandal , and in such a case she becomes liable to bring an offering because of the sandal, whose birth occurred after the conversion.

Mishna:

The placenta

[the gestational sac in which the offspring is] found

in

the house—the house is impure

because of the tent of the dead.

And the Mishna explains:

Not

that the house is impure because

the placenta

itself is considered

an offspring. Rather,

because

there is no

placenta without an offspring,

and certainly there is a dead offspring in it, and the offspring is what renders the house impure.

Rabbi Shimon says:

The house is pure, because

the offspring dissolved before it came out,

and the offspring became blood, and the blood of the offspring mixed with the blood of the birth and was nullified in it by the majority, and it does not render the house impure as a corpse.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: A placenta—

at its beginning

[at the beginning of its formation],

it resembles a weft thread

[which is thicker than a warp thread],

and at its end

when it grows and expands,

it resembles

in its width

a lupine! And it is hollow—

like a trumpet!

And a placenta is no smaller than a handbreadth!

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A placenta resembles the gizzard of chickens

164, from which the intestines

[the intestines]

emerge!

It was taught: Rabbi Oshaya, the younger of his colleagues:

Five

things

have a measure of a handbreadth —

and these are they: a placenta, a shofar, a spine, a sidewall of a sukka, and the hyssop 166.

a.

A placenta—this is what we said,

that every placenta whose size is a handbreadth is a placenta; and if she expelled something smaller, it is certainly not a placenta.

b.

A shofar—

as it was taught: What is the measure of a shofar? Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel explained: So that he can hold it in his hand,

with his four fingers,

and it will be visible

from the shofar

on this side and on that side 167,

and the measure required for this is

a handbreadth.

For the Gemara in Menahot [41b] explains that a handbreadth is measured as four thumbs, and since the thumb is wider than the other fingers, a shofar whose length is a handbreadth will not be covered by four other fingers .

c.

A spine—what is it? For Rav Parnakh said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The spine of a lulav,

without the leaves above it,

must protrude

above

the myrtle—

a handbreadth!

d.

A sidewall of a sukka—

as it was taught: Two

of the sidewalls of the sukka must be

according to their law,

with a length of seven handbreadths, but the

third sidewall—

even

if its length is only

a handbreadth,

the sukka is valid.

e.

Hyssop—

for Rabbi Hiyya taught:

Hyssop with which they sprinkle upon the leper, and likewise the hyssop required for the burning of the red heifer , its measure is—

a handbreadth!

Rabbi Hanina bar Pappa said: Shila, the man of Kfar Tamarata, expounded: three

things that were stated in

a teaching

by the tannaim, and they are the afterbirth, the shofar, and the wall of a sukka.

And two

things that were stated in

a tradition

by the amoraim, and they are the spine of a lulav and hyssop:

its measure—

a handbreadth!

And the Gemara asks: But

are there two

traditions? Behold, only

one is,

the spine of a lulav, since hyssop is a teaching that Rabbi Hiyya taught?!

And it answers:

Abaye said: Say: “Rabbi Hiyya said: hyssop—

a handbreadth.”

And not “Rabbi Hiyya taught,” for it is not a teaching that Rabbi Hiyya said in the name of the tannaim, but Rabbi Hiyya said it on his own; and therefore this statement is considered a “tradition.”

And the Gemara asks:

And is there no more

than the five things whose measure is a handbreadth?

But there is

a small tent that is

a handbreadth

in its length

by a handbreadth

in its width,

by a height of a handbreadth, square,

and inside it is an olive-bulk of a corpse—

it conveys the impurity

to the entire space of the tent, and renders impure everything within it, even though they do not touch the corpse. And likewise

it interposes before the impurity

—if an object is found upon the tent, and the impurity itself is inside the tent, the tent interposes between the impurity and the object, and the object remains pure. But if the tent were not a handbreadth high, the impurity beneath it would be considered “compressed impurity,” which rises to the firmament and renders impure the object above it; however, it would not render impure what is placed beside the impurity, even if it is inside the tent.

And the Gemara answers:

“A handbreadth”

by itself

we say

—that the measure of the five things is a handbreadth. But

“a handbreadth by a handbreadth”—

we did not say!

And the Gemara continues to ask:

But there is: a stone protruding from an oven

up to

a handbreadth, and from a stove

up to

three fingerbreadths

is

connected!

That is to say: the oven and the stove, which are made of earthenware, render impure food that touches them from their outside. And if the oven or the stove has a handle, that handle attached to the oven renders impure as though it were the oven itself. But if that handle is too large, it is generally removed, and therefore it is not considered part of the oven, and it does not render impure what touches it. And the measure of the handle required for the vessel differs between an oven and a stove: for an oven, which is large and has room for placing two pots, a handle one handbreadth long is required. But for a stove, which is small and has room only for one pot , a handle three fingerbreadths long suffices; and if it is longer, it is cut off.

And the Gemara answers:

When we say

that there are five things whose measure is a handbreadth—

where, if it is less than a handbreadth, it is not fit,

for the measure of a handbreadth is the smallest measure.

But here, all the more so that

a stone which is

less than a handbreadth is a “handle of an oven,”

for here the measure of a handbreadth is the greatest measure for being considered a handle; and all the more so a stone smaller than a handbreadth will not be cut off, and it will serve in its entirety as the handle of the vessel.