Niddah 27b (כז:) — the Talmud in English

And Rava rejects this:

And I said to them

to the Sages of Rav’s academy:

On the contrary! It is impossible that two particles of dust should not be mixed with

one particle of earth, thereby increasing its measure!

For the dust is the majority, and if so, it is the few particles of earth found scattered among the many particles of dust that should be nullified. Likewise, with regard to the shilya, it is the birth blood that should be nullified, and not the fetus.

Because of this difficulty, the Gemara explains another reason for Rabbi Shimon’s ruling:

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

who deems dust in which even the slightest amount of earth became mixed to be pure:

Its end

of the dust

is like its beginning,

like the beginning of the dust’s formation!

What is true of its beginning,

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

that substance

the same

other substance

is gangilon

[nullifying it], as the dust of a corpse renders one impure only if it formed on its own; but if another substance became mixed with it while it was forming, that other substance renders the entire mixture exempt from the impurity of dust.

So too, at its end,

after it has become dust and renders one impure with corpse impurity, if another substance becomes mixed into it,

that substance

the same

other substance

is gangilon,

which nullifies it from the impurity of dust.

According to this explanation, there is no connection between the purification of dust that became mixed with earth and the purification of a shilya. The Gemara retracts what it initially said: “And Rabbi Shimon follows his reasoning”.

The Gemara analyzes this:

What is it?

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

As it was taught:

a.

What is a corpse that has dust

and whose dust renders one impure with tent impurity,

and what is a corpse that does not have dust? One that was buried naked in a marble coffin, or on a stone floor;

for in this manner nothing at all becomes mixed into the dust of the corpse—

this is a corpse that has dust

that renders one impure!

And what is a corpse that does not have dust

that renders one impure?

One that was buried in its shroud, or in a wooden coffin, or on a brick floor,

for the decay of the shroud or the wood, or the crumbling earth of the bricks, becomes mixed into the dust of the corpse—

this is a corpse that does not have dust,

as its dust does not render one impure!

b.

And they said

that it has the law of impurity of

dust only with regard to a corpse!

The Gemara explains that the intent of the beraita in this ruling is

to exclude one who was killed,

as blood did not leave his body in part when he was killed. Only the dust of a complete corpse, from which nothing at all is missing, renders one impure.

The main matter:

a.

A full ladleful of dust

[which is the measure that renders one impure],

into which even the slightest amount of earth fell—

it is impure. And Rabbi Shimon—

deems it pure.

b.

“A full ladleful” of dust that was scattered throughout a house—

the house is impure

because of tent impurity! Even though the dust was scattered, so that beneath the roof of the house there is not a full ladleful in one place, it is impure. It is sufficient that, taken together, the entire area beneath the roof contains the requisite measure to render one impure with tent impurity.

And Rabbi Shimon deems it pure

because earth from the house became mixed into the dust, in accordance with his position in the previous beraita, that a mixture of earth nullifies the impurity of dust.

The Gemara adds:

And it was necessary

to explain Rabbi Shimon’s dispute with the Sages twice, because one might mistakenly interpret their dispute in another way:

For if it had taught us only the first case,

in which the mixture of earth does not nullify the dust, one might 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 is scattered, I might say that they agree with Rabbi Shimon

that it is pure, for the Sages maintain

that one does not make a tent and then make another tent,

and two tents over two halves of the requisite measure do not combine. Therefore, although the Sages dispute Rabbi Shimon’s reason for deeming it pure—namely, the mixture with earth—they agree that when it is scattered, it does not render one impure through tent impurity. The beraita therefore had to state explicitly that the Sages render it impure even when the earth is scattered, to exclude this interpretation.

And if it had taught us only this,

that Rabbi Shimon deems dust scattered throughout a house pure, one might say that even according to Rabbi Shimon the mixture with earth does not purify the dust, and only

in this case did Rabbi Shimon say

that it does not render one impure

because one does not make a tent and then make another tent. But in this case,

where there is a full ladleful in one place,

I might say that he agrees with the Sages

that it is impure. Therefore,

it was necessary

for the beraita to teach explicitly that Rabbi Shimon also deems this case pure, and that his reason is not the absence of the requisite measure in one place, but rather that a mixture of earth purifies the dust.

Another beraita: “A full ladleful and more”

of

earth from a cemetery,

where earth was taken from a cemetery in a quantity greater than a full ladleful,

is impure

205. And Rabbi Shimon deems it pure.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason of the Sages,

as the earth itself is not impure?

And it answers:

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

not to contain a full ladleful of dust!

The Sages rendered it impure because of the full ladleful of dust mixed with earth. Rabbi Shimon deemed it pure because any mixture, even the slightest amount of earth, nullifies the full ladleful of dust and prevents it from rendering one impure.

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

Now, since you say

according to Rabba’s explanation, that

the reason for Rabbi Shimon

in deeming dust mixed with earth pure is

because “its end is like its beginning,”

which is a reason that applies only to the impurity of dust and not to every mixture of another substance within an impure object, and the explanation that Rabbi Shimon deemed a shilya pure because he followed his ruling concerning dust has therefore been rejected,

with regard to a shilya—

what is the reason for Rabbi Shimon?

And it answers:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They arrived at it because of nullification by the majority!

The birth blood is greater in quantity than the entire dissolved fetus, and it nullifies it.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his reasoning.

For Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov stated the same matter.

Rabbi Shimon—

that which we said.

Rabbi Eliezer—

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

that had never previously borne a fetus,

that discharged a mass of blood—

this

the mass

must be buried,

because it is the dissolved remains 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 mass must be buried.

And it is exempt

the animal that gives birth

from the firstborn,

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

And Rabbi Ḥiyya taught concerning it: That mass does not render one impure either through contact or through carrying,

and its status is not like that of other carcasses!

The Gemara asks:

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

it must be assumed that the mass does not contain a fetus that would render one impure like a carcass; if so—

why must it be buried?

And it answers:

In order to publicize—

that it exempts the animal from the firstborn!

So that everyone will know that this mass was what first opened the womb!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: What kind of answer is this? If the mass exempts the animal from the firstborn,

apparently it is a viable fetus, and

if so,

why did Rabbi Ḥiyya teach—

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

And it answers:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

The reason it does not render one impure through contact or carrying is—

because of nullification by the majority!

Since the dissolved fetus is nullified in the majority of the blood in the mass, it does not render one 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 that Rabbi Yoḥanan, who explained that the reason Rabbi Shimon deemed a shilya pure is nullification by a majority, follows his own view that Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov stated the same matter, as he explained that the mass likewise does not render one impure because it is nullified by the majority.

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

who deems pure in the Mishna the house in which a woman’s shilya is found,

that her mother is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth,

for even if the corpse impurity of the dissolved fetus is nullified by the majority, its birth is still regarded as a birth, and its mother is impure as a woman after childbirth.

A certain elder said to Rabbi Ami: I will explain to you the reason of Rabbi Yoḥanan

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

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

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

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

as the dissolved fetus resembles semen, she is

impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth!

Reish Lakish said that

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

that the fetus was thoroughly washed away in its waters,

which were washed away and mixed with the birth waters,

it becomes like a corpse whose form has become indistinct,

for just as a corpse that was burned and whose ashes were scattered, so that its skeleton no longer exists, no longer imparts impurity, so too, once the fetus was washed away in its waters and its form became indistinct, it is pure.

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

from where do we know that it is pure?

For you purified the fetus that was washed away in its waters on this basis; but from where do you know this principle itself?

If you say that it can be derived from this statement of Rabbi Shabtai, who said that Rabbi Yitzhak Migdal'a said—and some say that Rabbi Yitzhak Migdal'a said that Rabbi Shabtai said:

A corpse that was burned but whose skeleton remains,

so that its ashes were not scattered and it still appears whole, is

impure.