Niddah 42b — the Talmud in English

And yet

there,

with regard to the impurity of the carcass of a kosher bird,

it has

no

impurity outside,

and the Torah’s novelty is that only inside, when it is swallowed impurity, does it render impure the person who eats it and the garments that he is wearing at the time of eating.

But

here,

in the case of a woman who gives birth,

when it emerges,

when the blood of the woman who gave birth emerges

to the outside,

outside her body,

let it render impure,

for it renders impure outside. And since this blood renders impure outside, when it is not in the category of swallowed impurity, for what reason did they decree impurity upon it while the blood is swallowed in her body? And in what way is this impurity different from the other impurities, that specifically here they decreed it? And by the force of this objection the Gemara retracts: both from what it established the words of Rabbi Zeira as referring to swallowed impurity, and from what it established the words of the beraita as according to his words.

Rather,

here too,

what Rabbi Zeira said refers

when it emerged outside,

to blood that had detached toward the external passage before her immersion, but emerged from her body after the immersion, and rendered her impure through contact outside her body. And as long as the blood had not emerged outside her body, she is pure, for the immersion was effective for her purification from the impurity of a woman who gives birth. And the blood that detached and remained swallowed in the external passage at the time of immersion did not render her impure until it actually emerged outside her body, for this is swallowed impurity.

And if you would say:

if it emerged outside—

what is it coming to say!?

For is it not obvious that this blood, which is impure blood [because it detached before the immersion], renders impure through contact from outside?

This teaches us:

what might you have said,

that although it detached before the immersion, its immersion was effective to purify it,

since the immersion is effective for the blood

of the source

that is inside,

for all the blood that did not emerge into the external passage was purified through the immersion, and if it emerges into the external passage thereafter, it is pure blood,

it should also be effective

for the immersion

of this

blood that detached and remained in the external passage at the time of immersion.

This teaches us

that since the blood detached before the immersion, even though she immersed before the blood emerged from the external passage, this blood remains impure, and renders impure through contact and carrying.

And the Gemara asks: After we established the words of Rabbi Zeira in a manner in which the blood emerged outside and renders her impure when it emerges outside her body,

our teaching,

the words of Rabbi Zeira, indeed

has been extricated

from the objection of why does the blood render impure, when it is swallowed impurity, because now we have established that it renders impure while it is outside, and there is a novelty in saying that the immersion was not effective for the impure blood while it was swallowed in the external passage.

Rather,

the beraita, which is not speaking of a case in which the blood emerged outside, but comes to say that the woman becomes impure when the blood emerges into the external passage, and included in this also stated the law of

a woman who gives birth,

the earlier objection returns: Is it not obvious that a woman who gives birth and saw blood in the external passage becomes impure? For

if during the days of menstruation

the blood detached, she is

a menstruating woman;

she

if during the days of ziva,

it has been taught for her the law of

ziva.

And the Gemara answers:

With what are we dealing here? With a dry birth,

in which no blood emerged from the woman at all at the time of the birth, and therefore this woman who gave birth is neither a menstruating woman nor a woman in a state of ziva.

And the Gemara objects:

A dry birth—

what is there of “renders impure inside as outside”?

And the Gemara answers:

For example, the fetus brought its head outside the corridor,

while it was still in the external passage, for its head had not yet emerged completely outside, and through this it is called born by Torah law, and its mother becomes impure with the impurity of birth.

And this is what the beraita teaches us: that the emergence of the head into the external passage is considered a complete birth,

and in accordance with Rav Oshaya,

who holds that if the head of the fetus emerged from the corridor into the external passage, it is called born by Torah law.

For we learned in tractate Chullin: A woman whose fetus died inside her, and the midwife [the woman who delivers] extended her hand and touched it, the Sages decreed upon the midwife that she should be impure with corpse impurity, whereas the fetus’s mother remains pure until the fetus emerges [either because it is swallowed impurity, which does not render impure through contact or carrying, or because a dead fetus does not render impure before it is born].

And the Gemara there asks [Chullin 72]: What is the reason that we decree impurity upon the midwife who touches more than upon its mother?

And the Gemara there answers:

For Rav Oshaya said: A decree, lest the fetus bring its head outside the corridor

into the external passage, and the midwife touch it there [but its mother senses when the fetus emerges into the external passage, and therefore they did not decree impurity upon its mother]. For in the external passage the stillborn renders impure by Torah law, since from the moment it emerges into the external passage it is like a born child who emerged outside.

And,

this matter that we find in the Mishna, that in the external passage the fetus is considered born, we find something similar in the case of

a certain man who came before Rava 41 .

He said to him: What is the law regarding circumcising

a baby

on Shabbat?

He said to him,

Rava:

It is perfectly fit,

it is permitted!

After he left, Rava said

to himself, and:

Could it enter your mind that this man did not know that it is permitted to circumcise on Shabbat?

Rava went

after him,

and said to him: Tell me, please [

my dear],

how exactly did the incident occur?

He said to him: I heard the cry of a baby [

I heard the baby’s cry]

on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall [

while it was still in its mother’s womb],

but it was not born until Shabbat.

Rava said to him,

Rava:

This is a case in which he brought his head outside the corridor,

for the voice of the baby cannot be heard unless he had already brought his head into the external passage, and it follows that he was born on the eve of Shabbat, despite the fact that his emergence outside was on Shabbat. And if so, the time for his circumcision was on the eve of Shabbat.

And

since they did not circumcise him on the eve of Shabbat, but came to ask whether they were permitted to circumcise him,

it is a circumcision not in its proper time. And for every circumcision not in its proper time, one does not violate Shabbat.

They raised a dilemma before them: Is that place of a woman considered “swallowed,” or is it considered “a concealed place”?

There are two situations in which the laws of impurity do not apply:

A. An impure object swallowed inside a living creature does not render impure one who touches it or carries it while it is swallowed .

B. Contact with an impure object in a concealed place, such as a concealed place, does not render impure through contact, but does render impure through carrying.

And the Gemara was uncertain about the status of “that place” in a woman if an impure object were inserted into it:

Is that impure object considered swallowed within it, and would it not render impure through carrying or contact?

Or perhaps that place is not considered swallowed, but is only not considered an exposed place; it does not render impure through contact, but does render impure through carrying.

What practical difference is there? For example, if her companion pushed an olive-sized portion of a carcass into that place.

If you say that it is swallowed, swallowed impurity does not render impure.

But

if you say

that this is not swallowed but only

a concealed place,

then

although it does not render impure through contact, it nevertheless renders impure through carrying,

for she carries the carcass that is in that place.

Abaye said: It is swallowed.

Rava said: It is a concealed place.

Rava said: From where do I say this

that that place is not considered swallowed, but is only a concealed place?

For it was taught

above concerning a woman who discharges semen: The Torah said, “And they shall wash in water and remain impure until evening.” And Rabbi Shimon said: What does this come to teach us? If regarding one who touches semen, it has already been stated below, “Or a man…”

Rather,

the verse is needed

because it is the impurity of a concealed place, and the impurity of a concealed place does not render impure, but it is a decree of the verse

that a woman who discharges semen should become impure in a concealed place. And it is proved that the reason is not because it is swallowed, but because it is a concealed place.

And Abaye,

who holds that it is swallowed, said:

The teacher of the beraita said “one thing, and furthermore”:

the teacher of the beraita said:

One thing: for it is swallowed impurity.

And furthermore, even if you should conclude that it is the impurity of a concealed place

alone, it also

does not render impure, but it is a decree of the verse.

They raised a dilemma before them:

The place of swallowing, which is

the place

in which

the carcass of a kosher bird

renders impure through eating—is it

swallowed, or is it a concealed place?

What practical difference is there? For example, if his companion pushed an olive-sized portion of a carcass into his mouth,

into the place of swallowing.

If you say

that the place of swallowing

is swallowed,

then this carcass, which was pushed by his companion into his place of swallowing, is

swallowed impurity,

and swallowed impurity

does not render impure. But if you say that it is a concealed place,

then

although it does not render impure through contact, it nevertheless renders impure through carrying.

Abaye said: It is swallowed.

And Rava said: It is a concealed place.

Abaye said: From where do I say this

that the place of swallowing is a swallowed place?

For it was taught: Could it be that the carcass of an animal renders garments impure in the place of swallowing,

just as the carcass of a kosher bird renders impure?

The verse states: “A carcass and an animal torn by a beast he shall not eat, to become impure through it.”

And the beraita expounds that only “through it,” through the carcass of a kosher bird, are the garments of the eater rendered impure when it is in the place of swallowing, and none of the other impurities render impure in the place of swallowing, neither through contact nor through carrying [because the place of swallowing is considered swallowed, and in accordance with the words of Abaye], and this is how they learn:

One that has no impurity

other

than its eating,

namely, the carcass of a kosher bird, which renders impure only at the time of eating and specifically in the place of swallowing—only with regard to it did the Torah innovate that it renders impure in the place of swallowing.

This one is excluded,

the carcass of an animal,

which is impure before he eats it,

and therefore the Torah did not include that it should also render impure in the place of swallowing.

And it is proved according to Abaye. For according to Rava, the carcass should have rendered impure in the place of swallowing by the law of carrying [for, since it is a concealed place, this place is excluded only from contact and not from carrying, and one whose companion pushed a carcass into the place of swallowing both touched the carcass with his place of swallowing and carried the carcass] .

And the Gemara objects to the fundamental law that the carcass of an animal does not render impure while it is in the place of swallowing, unlike the carcass of a kosher bird: Let the carcass of an animal render impure in the place of swallowing,

and let it be derived by a kal va-chomer from the carcass of a kosher bird:

And if the carcass of a kosher bird,

whose impurity is lenient,

for it has no impurity outside,

as it does not render impure through contact or carrying,

has impurity inside

in the place of swallowing,

this one,

the carcass of an animal,

which has impurity outside,

as it renders impure through contact and carrying,

is it not logical that it should have impurity inside?

And the Gemara answers:

The verse says “he shall not eat to become impure

through

it.” Through it,

through the carcass of a kosher bird, the novelty was stated that it renders impure through eating in the place of swallowing,

but not another!

Lest you say:

If so, what does the verse “and the one who eats

[from the carcass of an animal] shall launder his garments and remain impure until evening” come to teach? For apparently this verse teaches us that impurity through eating was stated also with regard to the carcass of an animal, whereas now we have said that only the carcass of a kosher bird renders impure there, and not the carcass of a pure animal?

The answer is: The verse did not come to include that a person who eats a carcass becomes impure, but

to establish a measure

for the impurity,

for one who touches

it

and for one who carries

it, for their measure is

like the eating. Just as eating is an olive-sized portion, so too contact and carrying

their measure of impurity is

an olive-sized portion.

Rava said: A creeping creature

that is found

in a fold

of a person [namely, between his elbows or in other places that have folds]

is pure,

the person. But if

a carcass is in his fold,

then he is

impure.

And the explanation is:

A creeping creature in his fold is pure,

because

a creeping creature through contact

alone

is what renders impure,

and not through carrying,

and a concealed place is not subject to contact.

But

a carcass in his fold renders him impure,

because

although it does not render impure through contact

in his fold, since this is contact with a concealed place,

it nevertheless renders impure through carrying,

for a person carries the carcass in his fold, and a concealed place is not excluded from impurity through carrying.

And Rava further said: If there was

a creeping creature in his fold, and he inserted it [

his fold together with the creeping creature inside it]

into the airspace of an oven, the oven is impure,

according to the law of a creeping creature that entered the airspace of an oven.

And the Gemara objects:

It is obvious

that it renders the oven impure, for what difference does it make that the creeping creature was found in his fold?

And the Gemara answers:

What might you have said:

It is written, “And any earthenware vessel into which any of them [from the impurity] falls,” and we expound: only

“into it,”

when the creeping creature is found inside the vessel,

the Merciful One said

that it renders impure,