Niddah 42b (מב:) — the Talmud in English

But

there,

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

has no

impurity

outside,

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

But

here,

with regard to a woman who has given birth,

when it emerges,

when the blood of the woman who has given birth emerges

outside,

out of her body,

it should render impure,

for it renders impure outside. Since this blood renders impure outside, when it is not considered swallowed impurity, why did they decree impurity upon it while the blood is swallowed within her body? And in what way is this impurity different from all other impurities, that they decreed so specifically here? By force of this objection, the Gemara retracts both its interpretation of Rabbi Zeira’s statement as referring to swallowed impurity and its interpretation of the beraita as supporting his words.

Rather,

here too,

what Rabbi Zeira said refers to a case

when it emerged outside,

concerning blood that had detached and entered the outer chamber before her immersion, but emerged from her body only after the immersion and rendered her impure through contact outside her body. As long as the blood had not emerged from her body, she remained pure, since the immersion was effective in purifying her from the impurity of a woman who has given birth. The blood that had detached and remained swallowed in the outer chamber did not render her impure until it actually emerged from her body, since this is swallowed impurity.

And if you would say:

If it emerged outside—

what is the point of stating this!?

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

It teaches us this:

What might you have said?

Although it detached before the immersion, the immersion was effective in purifying it;

since the immersion is effective for the blood

of the source

that is inside,

for all the blood that had not emerged into the outer chamber was purified by the immersion, and if it emerges into the outer chamber thereafter, it is pure blood;

the immersion should likewise be effective

for

this

blood that detached and remained in the outer chamber at the time of the immersion.

It teaches us

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

The Gemara asks: After we have interpreted Rabbi Zeira’s statement as referring to blood that emerged outside and renders her impure when it emerges from her body,

our teaching,

Rabbi Zeira’s statement, has indeed

been resolved

from the objection that the blood is swallowed impurity, since we have now interpreted it as rendering her impure while outside, and there is a novelty in teaching that the immersion did not purify blood that was impure while swallowed in the outer chamber.

But

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 outer chamber, and included in this rule also the law of

a woman who has given birth,

revives the earlier objection: Surely it is obvious that a woman who has given birth and saw blood in the outer chamber becomes impure, since

if it detached during the days of menstruation,

the blood

is menstrual blood;

she

and if during the days of ziva,

the law of

ziva applies to her.

The Gemara answers:

With what are we dealing here? With a birth without blood,

in which no blood emerged from the woman at all during the birth; therefore this woman who gave birth is neither a menstruant nor a zavah.

The Gemara objects:

A birth without blood—

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

The Gemara answers:

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

while it was still in the outer chamber, as its head had not yet emerged completely outside. In this manner it is considered born by Torah law, and its mother becomes impure with the impurity of childbirth.

The beraita teaches us that the emergence of the head into the outer chamber 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 outer chamber, it is considered born by Torah law.

As we learned in tractate Chullin: If the fetus of a woman died inside her womb, and the midwife extended her hand and touched it, the Sages decreed that the midwife 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]: Why did we decree impurity upon the midwife who touches it, more than upon its mother?

The Gemara there answers:

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

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

And,

this matter that we find in the Mishna—that in the outer chamber the fetus is considered born—we find a similar case in

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 acceptable,

it is permitted!

After he left, Rava said

to himself: Surely,

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

Rava went

after him and

said to him: Tell me, please [

my beloved],

what exactly was the incident?

He said to him: I heard the fetus cry [

I heard the baby’s cry]

on the eve of Shabbat,

[during the daytime on Friday,] while it was still in its mother’s womb,

but it was not born until Shabbat.

Rava said to him:

Rava:

This one had brought his head outside the corridor,

for the baby’s voice cannot be heard unless he had already brought his head into the outer chamber. It follows that he was born on the eve of Shabbat, despite the fact that his emergence outside took place on Shabbat. Therefore, the time for his circumcision was the eve of Shabbat.

And

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

it is a circumcision not performed at its proper time. And for every circumcision not performed at its proper time, Shabbat may not be desecrated.

It was raised as a dilemma before them: Is the woman’s genital area considered “swallowed,” or is it considered a “concealed place”?

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

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

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

The Gemara raised the question of the status of “that place” in a woman, if an impure object were inserted into it:

Would that impure object be considered swallowed within her, and therefore not render her impure through carrying or contact?

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

What practical difference does it make? For example, if another woman inserted an olive-bulk of an unslaughtered carcass into that place.

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

But

if you say

that it is not swallowed, but merely

a concealed place,

then

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

since she carries the carcass in that place.

Abaye said: It is swallowed.

Rava said: It is a concealed place.

Rava said: From where do I say

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

As it was taught:

above, with regard to 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 it concerns one who touches semen, it has already been stated below, “or a man.”

Rather,

the verse is necessary

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

that a woman who discharges semen renders one impure in a concealed place. This proves that the reason is not that it is swallowed, but that it is a concealed place.

And Abaye,

who holds that it is swallowed, said: The tanna of the beraita

stated “one matter, and furthermore”:

the tanna said:

One matter: It is swallowed impurity.

And furthermore, even if you would say that it is the impurity of a concealed place

alone, it also

does not render one impure; rather, it is a decree of the verse.

It was raised as a dilemma before them: The mouth cavity, which is the

place

where

the

unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird

renders one impure through eating—does it

have the status of swallowed, or the status of a concealed place?

What practical difference does it make? For example, if another person inserted an olive-bulk of an unslaughtered carcass into his mouth,

into the mouth cavity.

If you say

that the place of the mouth cavity

is swallowed,

then this carcass, which another person inserted into his mouth cavity, has the status of

swallowed impurity,

and swallowed impurity

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

then

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

Abaye said: It is swallowed.

And Rava said: It is a concealed place.

Abaye said: From where do I say

that the mouth cavity is considered a swallowed place?

As it was taught: Could it be that the carcass of a domesticated animal renders garments impure in the mouth cavity,

just as the carcass of a kosher bird renders them impure?

The verse states: “An unslaughtered carcass or a torn animal he shall not eat, to become impure through it.”

The beraita expounds that only “through it”—through the carcass of a kosher bird—are the garments of one who eats it rendered impure when it is in the mouth cavity; no other impurity renders one impure in the mouth cavity, neither through contact nor through carrying [because the mouth cavity is considered swallowed, in accordance with Abaye]. And this is derived as follows:

The one that has no impurity

other than

its eating,

namely, the carcass of a kosher bird, which renders one impure only at the time of eating and specifically in the mouth cavity—the Torah introduced the rule only for it, that it renders one impure in the mouth cavity.

This excludes this one,

the carcass of a domesticated animal,

which is impure before one eats it;

therefore the Torah did not include it as also rendering one impure in the mouth cavity.

This supports Abaye. For according to Rava, the carcass should have rendered one impure in the mouth cavity through carrying, since as a concealed place the mouth cavity is excluded only from contact and not from carrying; and one into whose mouth cavity a carcass was inserted both touched the carcass and carried it .

The Gemara objects to the basic law that the carcass of a domesticated animal does not render one impure while in the mouth cavity, unlike the carcass of a kosher bird: Why should the carcass of a domesticated animal not render one impure in the mouth cavity?

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

Just as the carcass of a kosher bird,

whose impurity is lenient,

as it has no impurity outside,

and does not render one impure through contact or carrying,

nevertheless has impurity inside,

in the mouth cavity;

this one,

the carcass of a domesticated animal,

which has impurity outside,

and renders one impure through contact and carrying,

should it not follow that it has impurity inside?

The Gemara answers:

The verse states: “He shall not eat to become impure

through

it.” Through it,

the carcass of a kosher bird, the novelty was stated that it renders one impure through eating in the mouth cavity,

but not through another!

Lest you say:

If so, what is the meaning of the verse, “And the one who eats

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

The answer is that the verse does not come to include a person who eats an unslaughtered carcass as becoming impure, but rather

to establish the measure

for impurity

for one who touches

it

and for one who carries

it: the measure is

like that of eating. Just as eating requires an olive-bulk, so too contact and carrying

require this measure for their

olive-bulk.

Rava said: A creeping creature

that is found

in a fold

of a person [that is, between his arms or in other places containing folds]—

the person is pure.

But if

an unslaughtered carcass is in his fold,

then he is

impure.

The explanation is:

A creeping creature in his fold renders him pure,

because

a creeping creature through contact

alone

is what renders one impure,

and not through carrying,

and a concealed place is not subject to contact.

But

an unslaughtered carcass in his fold renders him impure,

because

although it does not render one impure through contact

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

it nevertheless renders one impure through carrying,

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

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,

as is the law of a creeping creature that enters the airspace of an oven.

The Gemara objects:

It is obvious

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

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 which,”

when the creeping creature is found inside the vessel,

the Merciful One stated

that it renders it impure,