Niddah 28a — the Talmud in English

It once happened

with a corpse that was burned, but its skeleton remained,

and they rendered the large openings impure, ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact column location")

and they rendered the small openings pure.

For when a corpse is found in a house, all the openings of the house render impure what is beneath them by the law of a tent, despite the fact that the roofs of the openings project outside the house, and despite the fact that the door facing the house is closed. This impurity is because every opening through which it is suitable to remove the corpse from the house renders impure by the law of a tent. Therefore, when there are large and small openings in the house in which the corpse was found, only the openings larger than four handbreadths render impure by the law of a tent, because it is suitable to remove the corpse only through them, and not through the small openings.

And

And since the beraita emphasized that this is a case in which its skeleton remained,

you infer from it—

the reason is that its skeleton remained

that we render the large openings impure;

but if it were not so,

that its form had become disordered and its skeleton had not remained,

it would be pure,

and you would prove from here that there is no impurity for a corpse whose dust has dispersed, and on this basis you rendered a shafir whose form had become disordered pure, but from where do you have [grounds] to infer in such a manner?

But behold,

on the contrary—

infer from it in the opposite direction:

the beraita had to establish that its skeleton remained because specifically when

its skeleton remained, they rendered the small openings pure,

for since it is whole, they do not remove it through the small openings;

but if it were not so,

when the wholeness of its form had become disordered—

the small openings too are impure, for each and every one

of the small openings

is suitable for removing one limb at a time!

For the wholeness of the corpse has come apart, and it is possible to remove each limb from it separately; and the removal of the limbs is suitable to be performed even through the small openings, and therefore they render impure?!

And in conclusion: Rabbi Yohanan remained with his objection, that one cannot infer from the words of Rabbi Yitzhak of Migdalah that a corpse that was burned and whose form became disordered is pure; and Rabbi Shimon, who rendered a shilya pure, his reason was because of nullification in the majority.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi:

Rabbi Yohanan

who renders a corpse whose form became disordered impure,

whose view does he state?—

Like Rabbi Eliezer! For we learned in the Mishna: Ashes of

the dead

that were burned—

Rabbi Eliezer says: its measure,

for rendering impure, is

a quarter

of a kav! And it is proven that the ashes of a corpse, although its form became disordered, render impure.

And the Gemara returns to explain the incident involving a corpse that was burned:

What are the circumstances of a corpse that was burned but whose skeleton remained?

Abaye said: For example,

that they burned it upon a katavla,

a hard hide that does not burn, and there were partitions in the hide that preserved all the corpse’s ashes within it, and they did not disperse, .

Rava said: For example,

that they burned it upon apodrin,

a marble stone that has a receptacle, and the ashes were preserved.

Ravina said: For example,

that it was merely scorched,

for the corpse was merely scorched but did not become ashes, and with slight burning the form remains intact, .

The Sages taught: If a woman miscarries a severed hand,

whose fingers are properly divided and formed,

and a severed foot—

its mother is impure with birth impurity,

for we assume that it was whole, and its other limbs dissolved, and therefore we did not see them.

And we are not concerned that perhaps they came from a sealed body,

for although a fetus whose limbs are lacking and who, as a result of the deficiency, cannot live does not render impure with birth impurity, we are not concerned that perhaps the hand before us also came from a deficient fetus; rather, we rely on the fact that most fetuses are whole.

Rav Hisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna both say: We do not give her

to a woman who miscarries a severed hand or foot

days of purity,

although she observes days of impurity as one who certainly gave birth.

What is the reason?—

Because we are concerned:

say that she delayed her birth,

for since she has now miscarried only a hand or foot, we are concerned that perhaps she miscarried the other limbs a long time ago; and the days of impurity and purity begin after she has miscarried the majority of the fetus’s limbs, and in this fetus we do not know when the moment was at which the majority of the limbs emerged, and perhaps they have already ended—and because of the uncertainty, we are stringent and do not give her days of purity at all!

Rav Yosef raised an objection [

from the Mishna below]:

If a woman miscarries and does not know what she miscarried,

who knows that it was a fetus but does not know whether it was male or female—

she shall observe [the laws] for a male and for a female!

We are stringent with her because of the uncertainty: she observes days of impurity as for a female, and she has days of purity only as for a male.

And if it enters your mind that in every such case

where she does not know what she miscarried because the fetus emerged limb by limb, we are concerned

that perhaps she delayed her birth

and she has no days of purity at all—

let the Mishna teach

in the Mishna: “She shall observe [the laws] for a male and for a female

and for a menstruating woman”!?

That is, after fourteen days of impurity as one who gave birth to a female, she should treat every blood that she sees as the blood of a menstruating woman, since she has no days of purity at all, because of the uncertainty that perhaps she delayed her birth and the days of purity have already passed.

Abaye said: If it had taught

also

“and for a menstruating woman,” I would have said

a mistaken interpretation of the Mishna: that the reason she has no days of purity is that we are uncertain whether she gave birth to a fetus at all. And because of this error, they would think that she

brings a sacrifice

of a woman who gave birth because of uncertainty,

and it is not eaten [

for the bird sin-offering is pinched, and if she is not obligated in it, it is carrion and forbidden to eat].

And in order to prevent such an error, the tanna omitted the law that she should observe [the laws] for a menstruating woman, and

it teaches us that it is eaten

her sacrifice, for it is not a sacrifice brought because of uncertainty, but a definite sacrifice!

Rav Huna said: If a fetus extended its hand, and withdrew it—

its mother is impure with birth impurity! As it is stated: “And it was when she gave birth,—

and he gave a hand”!

Thus, the extension of the hand is already considered the time of her giving birth.

Rav Yehuda raised an objection: If a fetus extended its hand—

its mother need not be concerned about anything!

Rav Nahman said: For me, it was explained to me by Rav Huna: To be concerned

with birth impurity—

she is concerned,

but

days of purity—

we do not give her until the majority of it emerges

of the fetus!

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

But it says, “Its mother need not be concerned about anything,”

which implies that even the days of impurity have not begun?

And it answers:

Abaye said: She need not be concerned about anything by Torah law, but by rabbinic law she is concerned,

and Rav Huna, who said that she is impure, meant by rabbinic law, .

And the Gemara again raises a difficulty:

But Rav Huna cites a verse

Rav Huna, who learned from the Torah that the birth of a hand is a birth?!

And it answers: Rav Huna rendered her impure only

by rabbinic law,

and the

and the verse

that he cited—

is merely a supporting indication!

Mishna:

a.

If a woman miscarries a tumtum,

whose sex is unknown because a membrane of skin covers its sexual signs,

and an androgynos,

which has both male and female organs, —

she shall observe [the laws] for a male and for a female,

for because of the uncertainty we are stringent: she is impure for fourteen days, as one who gives birth to a female, and her days of purity conclude on the fortieth day from the birth, as one who gives birth to a male.

b. If a woman miscarries twins—

a tumtum and a male

or

an androgynos and a male—

she shall observe [the laws] for a male and for a female!

For in this case too we are stringent with her because of the tumtum or the androgynos, and she is impure for two weeks as one who gave birth to a female.

And if the twins were

a tumtum and a female

or

an androgynos and a female, she shall observe [the laws] for a female alone.

For since she gave birth to a female, there is no further difference concerning what the sex of the tumtum and the androgynos is; for even a woman who gives birth to twins, one of whom is certainly male and the other female, has the law of one who gave birth to a female alone, and she has sixty-six days of purity.

3.

came out

the offspring

cut into

limb after limb,

or castrated,

with its legs coming out first, contrary to the usual order, in which the head comes out first—

once the majority of it has come out, it is considered born!

4.

came out

the offspring

in its usual manner,

with the head coming out first—

until the majority of its head has come out,

it is considered born, and it is unnecessary for the majority of the body to come out.

And what is “the majority of its head”? Once its forehead has come out

its brow!

Gemara:

The Gemara asks:

now

a woman who gives birth to

a tumtum by itself, and an androgynos by itself, said the

tanna in the Mishna

that she must sit [as one who has given birth] to a male and to a female,

gave birth to twins,

a tumtum and a male

or

an androgynos and a male—

is it necessary [to state this]?

What room was there to distinguish on account of another male offspring having been born together with the tumtum or the androgynos, so that the tanna needed to teach us that their law is the same?

And it answers:

It was necessary! For it might have been said: Since Rabbi Yitzhak said, “If a woman emits seed first—

she gives birth to a male; if a man emits seed first—

she gives birth to a female,” I would say that from this

offspring

male, this

tumtum

is also male,

for they are twins who were formed together, and since one of the offspring is male, we certainly know that the woman emitted seed first, and necessarily the second offspring is also male. And in order to exclude this error,

it teaches us

the tanna explicitly that even one who gives birth to a tumtum and a male must be concerned that perhaps the tumtum is female, for we are concerned that

let us say both,

the husband and the woman,

emitted seed at the same time,

and then it is possible—for

this one

the woman, who emitted seed, caused the birth of

a male, and this one

the man, who emitted seed, caused the birth of

a female!

Rav Nahman said in the name of Rav: A tumtum and an androgynos who saw whiteness

resembling semen, which renders males impure,

or redness

resembling menstrual blood, which renders a female impure—

are not liable

for a sacrifice

for entering the Temple,

while impure, since perhaps they are pure, for a male who saw redness and a female who saw whiteness do not become impure, and a tumtum and an androgynos are in doubt as to what their sex is.

And one does not burn teruma on their account

but suspends it, like any teruma that became impure as a matter of doubt.

And even if

they saw whiteness and redness together,

in which case they are certainly impure, for if he is male, he became impure through whiteness, and if she is female, through redness,

they are not

они

liable for entering the Temple,

for anyone who is not certainly male or certainly female is not liable for a sacrifice,

but one burns teruma on their account,

because they certainly rendered it impure.