Niddah 27b — the Talmud in English

And Rava rejects this:

And I said to them

to the Sages of the school of Rav:

On the contrary! It is impossible that two particles of decay should not exceed ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

one particle of earth, and its measure would be increased!

For the decay is the majority, and if so, it is the few particles of earth found scattered among the numerous particles of decay that should be nullified. And likewise, concerning the afterbirth, it is the birth-blood that should be nullified, and not the fetus.

Because of the difficulty, the Gemara explains another reason in the words of Rabbi Shimon:

Rather, said Rabba, this is the reason of Rabbi Shimon

who declares decay into which any amount of earth became mixed pure:

Its end

of the decay

is like its beginning,

like the beginning of the formation of the decay!

What is its beginning,

if at the beginning of the formation of the decay another substance became mixed into it,

it becomes for it

that

other substance—

gangilon

[nullifies] , for the decay of the dead renders impure only if it formed by itself; but if, at the time of its formation, another substance became mixed into the decay, that other substance nullifies the entire mixture from the impurity of decay.

So too its end,

after it became decay and renders impure with the impurity of the dead, if another substance became mixed into it,

it becomes for it

that

other substance—

gangilon,

which nullifies it from the impurity of decay.

According to this explanation, there is no connection between the purity of decay into which earth became mixed and the purity of the afterbirth. And the Gemara retracts what it initially said, “and Rabbi Shimon follows his own reasoning” .

And the Gemara discusses:

What is it?

Where was it explained that another substance that becomes mixed in at the beginning nullifies it from the impurity of decay?

For it was taught:

a.

Which dead has decay

and its decay renders impure with the impurity of a tent,

and which dead does not have decay? One who was buried naked in a marble coffin, or upon a floor of stones,

for in this manner no amount of anything becomes mixed into the decay of the dead—

this is a dead person who has decay

that renders impure!

And which dead does not have decay

that renders impure?

One who was buried in his garment, or in a wooden coffin, or upon a floor of bricks,

so that the decay of the garment, the wood, or the disintegrated earth of the bricks becomes mixed into the decay of the dead—

this is a dead person who does not have decay,

whose decay does not render impure!

b.

And they said

that it has the law of the impurity of

decay only concerning a dead person!

And the Gemara explains that the intention of the beraita in this law is

to exclude one killed,

for his blood did not all leave when he was killed. For only the decay of a complete dead person, from whose body nothing is lacking, renders impure .

The essential matter:

a.

A full ladle of decay

[which is the measure that renders impure],

into which any amount of earth fell—

it is impure. And Rabbi Shimon—

declares it pure.

b.

“A full ladle” of decay that was scattered throughout a house—

the house is impure

because of a tent! Even though the decay was scattered, and beneath the roof of the house there is not a measure of “a full ladle” in one place, it is sufficient that in combination under the entire roof of the house there is the measure, in order to render impure with the impurity of a tent.

And Rabbi Shimon declares it pure

since earth from the house became mixed into the decay, and in accordance with his position in the preceding beraita, that a mixture of earth nullifies the impurity of decay.

And the Gemara adds:

And it is necessary

to explain twice the dispute of the Sages and Rabbi Shimon, because it would have been possible to err and interpret their dispute in another way:

For if it had informed us the first one,

that the mixing of earth does not nullify, it would have been possible to say that only

in that case did the Sages say

that it is impure,

because it is gathered,

and concentrated in one place.

But when it was scattered, I might say that they agree with Rabbi Shimon

that it is pure, for the Sages hold

that there is no overshadowing and then further overshadowing,

and two tents do not combine when they contain two halves of the measure. Therefore, even though the Sages disagree with Rabbi Shimon's reason for declaring it pure, namely, the mixture of earth, they agree that when it was scattered it does not render impure through a tent. The beraita therefore had to state explicitly that the Sages also declare it impure when the earth was scattered, to exclude this interpretation.

And if it had informed us this one,

that Rabbi Shimon declares decay that was scattered throughout a house pure, it would have been possible to say that even according to Rabbi Shimon the mixture of earth does not purify the decay, and only

in this case did Rabbi Shimon say

that it does not render impure because

there is no overshadowing and then further overshadowing. But in this case

where there is in one place the measure of a full ladle,

I might say that he agrees with the Sages

that it is impure. Therefore,

it is necessary

for the beraita to inform us explicitly that even in such a case Rabbi Shimon declares it pure, and that his reason for declaring it pure is not that there is no measure in one place, but that a mixture of earth purifies the decay.

Another beraita was taught: “A full ladle and more”

of

earth of the cemetery,

for they took earth from the cemetery in a quantity greater than a full ladle,

is impure

205. And Rabbi Shimon declares it pure.

And the Gemara asks:

What is the reason of the Sages,

for the earth itself is not impure?

And it answers:

Because it is impossible for “a full ladle and more” of cemetery earth—

not to contain a full ladle of decay!

And the Sages declared it impure because of a full ladle of decay mixed with earth. Rabbi Shimon declared it pure because of any mixture of earth, which nullifies the full ladle of decay from rendering impure.

The Gemara returns to explain the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Shimon concerning an afterbirth in a house:

Now, since you say

according to Rabba's explanation, that

the reason of Rabbi Shimon

for declaring earth mixed into decay pure is

because “its end is like its beginning,”

which is a reason only for the impurity of decay and not for every mixture of another substance into impurity, and the explanation that Rabbi Shimon, who declares the afterbirth pure, follows his position that he declares decay pure has been rejected, if so,

concerning the afterbirth—

what is the reason of Rabbi Shimon?

And it answers:

Rabbi Yohanan said: They touched upon it because of nullification by the majority!

For the birth-blood is greater than the entire dissolved fetus, and nullifies it.

And Rabbi Yohanan followed his own reasoning.

For Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said one thing.

Rabbi Shimon—

that which we said.

Rabbi Eliezer—

for it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: A large animal,

which had never previously had a fetus,

that discharged a blood-clot—

behold this,

the clot,

must be buried,

because it is the disintegrated form of the first fetus of this animal, and since it is possible that the dissolved fetus was male and possessed the sanctity of a firstborn, the clot must be buried.

And it is exempt

the animal that gave birth

from the firstborn,

for the next fetus is certainly not a firstborn, since the clot has already exempted her womb.

And Rabbi Hiyya taught concerning it: That clot does not render impure either through contact or through carrying,

and its law is not like that of other carcasses!

And the Gemara asks:

And since it does not render impure either through contact or through carrying,

it necessarily follows that we assume that there is no fetus in the clot that would render impure like a carcass; if so—

why must it be buried?

And it answers:

In order to publicize—

that it is exempt from the firstborn!

So that everyone will know that this clot is the opener of the womb!

And the Gemara objects: What is the answer? For if the clot exempts the animal from the firstborn,

it follows that it is a proper fetus, and

if so,

why did Rabbi Hiyya teach—

that it does not render impure either through contact or through carrying?!

And it answers:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

What it does not render impure through contact and carrying is

because they touched upon it because of nullification by the majority!

Since the dissolved fetus is nullified by the majority of the blood in the clot, it does not render impure. But with regard to the law of the firstborn, it exempts the womb even when it is mixed with a majority of blood.

It follows, then, that Rabbi Yohanan, who explained that the reason Rabbi Shimon declared the afterbirth pure is nullification by a majority, follows his own position when he said that Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said one thing, as he explained that the clot too does not render impure because it was nullified by the majority.

Rabbi Ami said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: And Rabbi Shimon concedes

who declares pure in the Mishna the house in which a woman's afterbirth was found,

that her mother is impure with the impurity of childbirth,

for even if the impurity of the dead of the dissolved fetus was nullified by the majority, its birth is considered a birth, and its mother is impure as a woman who has given birth.

That old man said to Rabbi Ami: I shall explain to you the reason of Rabbi Yohanan

who said that Rabbi Shimon concedes that her mother is impure with the impurity of childbirth—

for the verse says: “When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male,

and she shall be impure for seven days,” and we interpret:

even if she gave birth only to something resembling what she conceived,

as the dissolved fetus appears like semen, she is

impure with the impurity of childbirth!

Reish Lakish said that

the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon is not as Rabbi Yohanan explained it, but rather

that when the shapir was washed away in its fluids,

which was washed away and mixed with the birth fluids,

it becomes like a corpse whose form has become confused,

for just as a corpse that was burned and whose ash was scattered, and whose skeleton no longer exists, no longer imparts impurity, so too the shapir after it was washed away in its fluids, and its form became confused, is pure .

Rabbi Yohanan said to Reish Lakish: A corpse whose form has become confused—

from where do we know that it is pure?

for on this basis you declared the shapir that was washed away in its fluids pure, and this itself, from where do you know it?

If you say [that it is] from this, as Rabbi Shabtai said in the name of Rabbi Yitzhak of Migdal, and some say Rabbi Yitzhak of Migdal said in the name of Rabbi Shabtai:

A corpse that was burned while its skeleton remained,

that its ash was not scattered and it still appeared whole, it is

impure.