Niddah 28a (כח.) — the Talmud in English

There was an incident

involving a corpse that was burned, but whose skeleton remained intact,

and they deemed the large openings impure,

and they deemed the small openings pure.

For when a corpse is found in a house, all the openings of the house are rendered impure by tum'at ohel—the impurity of a tent—for anything found beneath them, even though the roofs of the openings project beyond the house, and even though the door facing the house is closed. This impurity is due to the fact that every opening through which it is fit to remove the corpse from the house renders objects beneath it impure through ohel. Therefore, when a house in which a corpse was found has both large and small openings, only openings four tefahim wide or larger render objects beneath them impure through ohel, since the corpse can be removed only through them and not through the small openings.

And

because the beraita emphasized that the corpse’s skeleton remained intact,

you infer from it

that the reason is that its skeleton remained intact:

it is for this reason that we render the large openings impure;

but if that were not so,

when its form had become disordered and its skeleton no longer remained intact,

it would be pure,

and you prove from here that there is no impurity for a corpse whose dust has dispersed, and on this basis you deemed a shafir whose form had become disordered pure . But from where do you derive that one may infer this?

And indeed,

on the contrary—

infer it in the opposite direction:

the beraita had to establish that the skeleton remained intact because only when

the skeleton remains intact do they deem the small openings pure,

since, because the corpse is whole, it is not removed through the small openings;

but if that were not so,

when the integrity of its form had become disordered—

the small openings would also be impure, since each and every one

of the small openings

is fit for removing one limb!

For the corpse’s wholeness has disintegrated, and each limb can be removed separately; the limbs can therefore appropriately be removed even through the small openings, and consequently those openings render objects beneath them impure?!

In conclusion: Rabbi Yohanan remained with his objection that one cannot infer from the statement of Rabbi Yitzhak of Migdal that a burned corpse whose form had become disordered is pure; and Rabbi Shimon’s reason for deeming a shilya pure is bittul berov, nullification through the majority.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi:

Rabbi Yohanan,

who renders a corpse whose form has become disordered impure,

in accordance with whom did he state this?

In accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned: The ashes

of

burned corpses—

Rabbi Eliezer says: Their measure,

for imparting impurity,

is a quarter

of a kav! This proves that the ashes of a corpse impart impurity even though its form has become disordered.

The Gemara returns to explain the incident involving a burned corpse:

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

Abaye said: For example,

they burned it on a katavla,

a hard hide that does not burn, with partitions in the hide that preserved all the corpse’s ashes within it and prevented them from dispersing .

Rava said: For example,

they burned it on apudrin,

a marble stone with a receptacle, in which the ashes were preserved.

Ravina said: For example,

it was merely scorched,

so that the corpse was singed but did not become ashes, and with limited burning its form remained intact .

The Sages taught: In the case of a woman who miscarries a severed hand,

whose fingers are properly divided and formed ,

or a severed foot—

its mother is impure with the impurity of childbirth,

because we assume that the fetus was whole, and that its other limbs dissolved and therefore were not seen.

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

for although a fetus lacking some of its limbs, and consequently unable to survive, does not render its mother impure through childbirth, we are not concerned that the hand before us may have come from a defective fetus. Rather, we rely on the fact that most fetuses are whole.

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

the woman who miscarries a severed hand or foot—

days of purity,

even though she observes days of impurity as a definite yoledet.

What is the reason?

Because we are concerned:

Perhaps her childbirth occurred earlier,

since, as she miscarried only a hand or foot now, we are concerned that she may have miscarried the other limbs long ago. The days of impurity and purity begin after the majority of the fetus’s limbs have emerged, and in this fetus we do not know when the moment arrived at which the majority of its limbs emerged . Perhaps those days have already ended; therefore, because of the uncertainty, we rule stringently and grant her no days of purity at all!

Rav Yosef raised an objection

[from the Mishna below]:

A woman who miscarries but does not know what she miscarried,

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

shall observe the periods for a male and for a female!

She is treated stringently because of the uncertainty: she observes the days of impurity applicable to a female, while she has days of purity only as applicable to 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 her childbirth occurred earlier,

and she has no days of purity at all—

let the Mishna teach

“She shall observe the periods for a male and a female

and for a menstruant woman”!?

That is, after fourteen days of impurity as a woman who gave birth to a female, she should treat every blood she sees as niddah, since she has no days of purity at all, due to the possibility that her childbirth occurred earlier and the days of purity have already elapsed.

Abaye said: Had it taught

also

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

that the Mishna was being interpreted incorrectly: the reason she has no days of purity is that it is uncertain whether she gave birth to a fetus at all. Because of this error, they would think that she

brings an offering

of a woman who gave birth because of the uncertainty,

but it may not be eaten

[because the bird sin-offering is pinched, and if she is not obligated to bring it, it is a carcass and forbidden to eat].

To prevent such an error, the tanna omitted the law that she should observe the status of a menstruant woman, and

this teaches us that the offering may be eaten

because it is not an offering brought because of uncertainty, but a definite offering!

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

its mother is impure with the impurity of childbirth! As it is stated: “And it came to pass when she gave birth

that he extended a hand”!

Thus, the extension of the hand is already considered the time of childbirth.

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

its mother need not be concerned about anything!

Rav Nahman said: For me, Rav Huna’s statement was explained to me by Rav Huna himself: As for concern

with regard to the impurity of childbirth—

she is concerned,

but as for

days of purity—

we do not grant them to her until the majority of the fetus emerges,

from the fetus!

The Gemara asks:

But he said, “its mother need not be concerned about anything,”

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

It answers:

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

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

The Gemara again asks:

But the verse states,

as Rav Huna said, deriving from the Torah that the emergence of a hand constitutes childbirth?!

It answers: Rav Huna rendered her impure only

by rabbinic law,

and the

verse

that he cited is

merely an asmakhta!

Mishna:

a.

A woman who miscarries a tumtum,

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

or an androgynos,

which has both male and female organs —

shall observe the periods for a male and for a female,

because of the uncertainty we rule stringently: she is impure for fourteen days, as a woman who gave birth to a female, and her days of purity conclude on the fortieth day from the birth, as for a woman who gave birth to a male.

b. A woman who miscarries twins—

a tumtum and a male

or

an androgynos and a male—

shall observe the periods for a male and for a female!

In this case as well, she is treated stringently because of the tumtum or the androgynos, and she is impure for two weeks, as a woman who gave birth to a female.

But if the twins were

a tumtum and a female

or

an androgynos and a female, she shall observe only the period for a female.

Since she gave birth to a female, it is no longer relevant what the sex of the tumtum or androgynos is. After all, even a woman who gives birth to twins, one certainly male and the other female, has the status of a woman who gave birth to a female alone, and she has sixty-six days of purity.

3.

4.