Niddah 27a (כז.) — the Talmud in English

There is no placenta attached to them -

we are concerned that there is another fetus,

and

I therefore impose upon them

the stringency applicable to two fetuses!

For if the fetus of an animal, wild animal, or bird was male, we are concerned that perhaps there was a female fetus in the placenta that dissolved. The woman who gave birth therefore observes fourteen days of impurity as a woman who gave birth to a female, and the days of purity conclude at the end of forty days from the first birth.

I say: Perhaps the amniotic sac of a placenta dissolved,

meaning that the placenta does not belong to the miscarried fetus, but to an additional fetus that was in it and dissolved, and

the placenta

also

of the amniotic sac

of the fetus that was born dissolved as well. Therefore, even though only one child and one placenta were seen before us, there were two fetuses, and each had its own placenta.

It is explicit in the beraita that there is a situation in which a bird is attached to a placenta -

a refutation

of Rabbi, who stated something that is not the case!

Rabba bar Sheila said that R. Mattena said that Shmuel said:

A.

There was an incident

involving a woman who gave birth to a live fetus, after which a placenta emerged,

and they attributed the placenta to the fetus,

and did not suspect another fetus, even when the placenta emerged

as late as ten days

after the birth!

B.

And they said, “One attributes

the placenta to the fetus”

only when the placenta emerges after the fetus!

For this is the normal manner of a placenta: It emerges only after the fetus. But if the placenta emerges before it, we are concerned about another fetus, even when the fetus is born immediately after its emergence.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There was an incident in which they attributed the placenta to the fetus even after twenty-three days

and not like Shmuel, who said that one attributes it only for up to ten days!

Rav Yosef said to him -

You told us twenty-four!

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avira, said that R. Yitzḥak said: There was an incident in which one fetus remained

the twin

after its fellow for thirty-three days! Rav Yosef said to him -

You told us thirty-four!

The Gemara asks:

This works according to the one who says that a woman who gives birth after nine

months

can give birth before the completion of the month,

meaning that she does not always give birth at the end of the ninth month of pregnancy, but may give birth earlier or later.

You can find

such a large interval of thirty-four days between the births. For example, one fetus -

one -

its form was completed at the end of seven

months, and it was then born,

and one -

its form was completed at the beginning of nine months.

But according to the one who says, “A woman who gives birth after nine -

does not give birth before the completion of the month,”

but completes her pregnancy through the end of the ninth month,

what can be said?

For there are sixty days between the end of the seventh month and the end of the ninth. It is impossible to say that both were born in the seventh month, concerning which everyone agrees that she can give birth before the completion of the month, because even if the first were born on the first day of the seventh month and the second on the last day, there would be only thirty days between them, not thirty-four. And it is impossible to say that one of them was born in the eighth month, because a fetus born in the eighth month does not survive?! The Gemara answers:

Reverse the teachings: thirty-three refers to the placenta,

which emerged after a delay of thirty-three days and was attributed to the fetus, and

twenty-three refers to the fetus,

whose birth was delayed twenty-three days after the first. This is possible, for example, if she gave birth to both of them in the seventh month, in which a woman can give birth before the completion of the month.

Rav Avin bar Rav Adda said that Rav Menaḥem of Kefar She’arim said, and some say, of Beit She’arim: There was an incident in which one fetus remained after its fellow for three months, and they are sitting before us here in the study hall! And who are they? -

Judah and Hezekiah, the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya!

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

But the Master said, “A woman cannot become pregnant and then become pregnant again,”

for the Gemara had assumed that such a large interval between births could occur only if she became pregnant again during her pregnancy, and the Gemara asks that such a thing is impossible?!

It answers:

Abaye said -

the two fetuses were formed together in a single pregnancy, for

one drop divided into two,

and a fetus was formed from each part.

One

had its

form completed at the beginning of

the

seventh

month, and was then born,

and one at the end of

the

ninth month.

We learned in the Mishna:

A placenta in a house -

the house is impure!

The Sages taught: A placenta in a house -

the house is impure, not because the placenta

itself

is a fetus, but because there is no placenta without a fetus with it,

which dissolved within it, and it thereby imparts impurity as a corpse

— the words of Rabbi Meir!

Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Judah, and Rabbi Shimon -

deem it pure!

They said to Rabbi Meir -

Do you not concede that if they removed it

from the house in

a bowl,

and transferred it intact

to the outer house

[another house],

it

[the second house]

is pure?

He said to them

Rabbi Meir -

Indeed!

[That is correct.]

They asked him again:

And why

did you render it impure in the inner house and pure in the outer house? Everything that was in the first house passed into the second!

Rabbi Meir answered them:

Because it is not so!

The movement of the placenta causes the fetus to dissolve and turn into liquid.

They said to him: Just as “it is not so”

remains in its form

in the outer house, so “it is not so” in the inner house,

since the movement of birth causes it to dissolve before it emerges into the first house.

He said to them: A fetus that has dissolved once is not comparable to one that has dissolved twice,

for only after it has been moved again while passing into the second house does it dissolve completely and become pure!

Rav Pappa was sitting behind Rav Beivi, before Rav Huna, and Rav Huna was sitting

and

saying: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon

who said that when there is a placenta in a house, the house is pure? Even if the fetus dissolved, it still exists in its entirety, and its law should be like that of the flesh of a corpse that rotted, which imparts impurity even though nothing of its form remains after the rotting?

Rav Huna answered:

He holds

that Rabbi Shimon holds:

Any impurity into which another substance of a different kind has become mixed is nullified!

In the placenta, the blood of childbirth became mixed with the dissolved fetus, and therefore the corpse impurity of the fetus was nullified.

Rav Pappa said to them -

This is also the reason of Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Yosei,

who held like Rabbi Shimon in the beraita! They agree with him not only with regard to the law, but also with regard to his reason.

Rav Huna and Rav Beivi laughed at him

and said to him -

What difference is there

between Rabbi Shimon’s reason and the reason of Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Yosei?

It is obvious

that their reason is the same, so what innovation is there in your statement?

Rav Pappa said: Even in a matter such as this,

which would cause them to smile and mock him,

a person should state his view and not remain silent before his teacher!

Perhaps, in the course of answering him, they will tell him the reason for the law.

Because it is stated: “If you have been foolish

concerning words of Torah -

you will be exalted”!

In the end you will be exalted!

“And if you have devised

and remained silent -

hand to mouth”!

In the end you will be unable to answer those who ask you!

The Gemara returns to the substance of Rabbi Shimon’s ruling and explains:

And Rabbi Shimon follows his own reasoning,

deeming a placenta pure because of the mixture with the blood of childbirth, in accordance with what he said elsewhere.

For it was taught: A spoonful

[a spoon]

of rekav

of a corpse imparts impurity through a tent, like a corpse before it rotted. And through a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, we learn that the amount of rekav required to impart impurity differs from that of an intact corpse. It imparts impurity only in the measure of a full spoonful. And even if

any amount of earth fell into it -

it is impure,

since none of the measure of rekav is lacking.

And Rabbi Shimon -

deems it pure,

because of the earth that fell into it.

What is Rabbi Shimon’s reason?

There is a measure of rekav in the full spoonful, and the small amount of earth is merely an addition.

Rava said: He found the Sages of the house of Rav sitting and saying -

this is Rabbi Shimon’s reason:

It is impossible that two particles

[grains]

of earth did not increase upon one particle of rekav, thereby reducing its measure!

At the place where the earth fell, one particle of rekav became mixed with two particles of earth, and that particle of rekav was nullified by the two particles of earth. Consequently, that particle of rekav is lacking from the measure of a full spoonful of rekav. For this reason Rabbi Shimon also deemed the placenta pure, since part of the dissolved fetus is mixed with the blood of childbirth and is nullified within it.