Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah

Folio 27a

Rabbah b. Shila citing R. Mattena who had it from Samuel stated: It once happened that a placenta was attributed to an embryo as late as⁶  ten days [after the latter's birth].⁷  [The law, however, that it] is to be attributed [to the existing embryo] applies only⁸  where the expulsion of the placenta followed the birth of the embryo.⁹  Rabbah b. Bar Hana citing R. Johanan stated: It once happened that a placenta was attributed to an embryo as late as¹⁰  twenty-three days [after the birth of the latter]. 'You once told us', said R. Joseph to him, 'as late as twenty-four days'. R. Aha son of 'Awira citing R. Johanan¹¹  stated: It once happened that the birth of an embryo was delayed for thirty-three days after that of its predecessor. 'You', said R. Joseph to him, 'have in fact told us thirty-four days.' [Such an incident may be explained] satisfactorily according to him who holds that a woman who bears at nine months does not necessarily complete the full number,¹²  since in such circumstances it is possible that the features of one embryo were completed at the end¹³  of seven months¹⁴  and those of the other at the beginning¹³  of the ninth month,¹⁵  but according to him who maintains that a woman who bears at nine months does complete the full number,¹²  what can be said [in explanation of the incident]?¹⁶  — Reverse the statements:¹⁷  Thirty-three days in the case of the placenta¹⁸  and twenty-three days in that of the embryo.¹⁹

R. Abin b. R. Adda citing R. Menahem of Kefar She'arim or, as some say, Beth She'arim, stated: It once happened that a child was born three months later than its predecessor and lo, both sit before us in the schoolhouse. And who are they? — Judah and Hezekiah the sons of R. Hiyya. But did not a Master say that a woman in conception cannot conceive again?²⁰  — Abaye replied: It was the same drop but it was divided in two sections; the features of one of these were completed at the beginning of the seventh month and those of the other were completed at the end of the ninth month.

IF A PLACENTA IS WITHIN A HOUSE, THE HOUSE IS UNCLEAN. Our Rabbis taught: If a placenta is in a house, the house is unclean; not because a placenta is a child but because generally there can be no placenta with which there is no child; so R. Meir. R. Jose, R. Judah and R. Simeon regard [the house] as clean. 'Do you not agree', they said to R. Meir, 'that if it had been carried out in a bowl into an outer room it would be clean?' 'Indeed', he replied. 'But why?'²¹  'Because it²²  is no longer in existence'. 'As', they retorted, 'it is not in existence in the outer room so is it not in existence in the inner room'.²³  'What was mashed once', he replied, 'is not like that which was mashed twice.'²⁴

R. Papa once sat behind R. Bubi in the presence of R. Hamnuna and in the course of the session he observed: What is R. Simeon's reason?²⁵  He is of the opinion that any uncleanness with which anything of a different kind of uncleanness has been mixed is neutralized. Said R. Papa to them: 'Is this also the reason of R. Judah and R. Jose?'²⁶  They laughed at him. 'Is not this obvious', they said, 'why should there be any difference?'²⁷  — 'Even such a question',²⁸  said R. Papa, 'a man should submit to his Master²⁹  and not be content with silence;³⁰  for it is said, If thou hast done foolishly³¹  thou art³²  lifting up thyself;³³  but³⁴  if thou hast planned devices,³⁵  lay thy hand upon thy mouth.³⁶

R. Simeon³⁷  follows the view he expressed elsewhere. For it was taught: If some earth fell into a ladleful of corpse-mould [the latter remains] unclean, but R. Simeon holds it to be clean. What is R. Simeon's reason? — Raba³⁸  replied: 'I met the Rabbis of the schoolhouse while they were sitting at their studies and explaining that³⁹  it is impossible that [somewhere in the mixture] two particles of earth to one of the corpse-mould should not represent the larger portion, so that⁴⁰  something is missing',⁴¹  and I said to them, 'On the contrary! It is impossible that [somewhere in the mixture] two particles of the corpse-mould should not represent a part greater than

1. If, for instance, the embryo aborted was a male, the placenta is presumed to contain the crushed embryo of a female, and the woman must, therefore, count fourteen unclean days (as for a female) and not only seven (as prescribed for a male). According to the Rabbis (who do not regard a bird or a beast as a valid birth) the restriction imposed would be to regard 'neither birth as valid and to deprive the woman in consequence of the advantage of the clean days prescribed for a woman after a childbirth.
2. Lit., 'for I say'.
3. So that the placenta belonged to that foetus and not to the one in existence.
4. That is in existence.
5. And lost. Hul. 77a. It is thus shown that a placenta is sometimes attached to the foetus. How then could Rabbi maintain (supra 26b ad fin.) that such a thing 'does not exist'?
6. Lit., 'until'.
7. Despite the long interval between the birth of the embryo and the expulsion of the placenta no assumption was made that the placenta of the embryo in existence was lost and that the placenta in existence belonged to a second embryo that was crushed.
8. Lit., 'and they only said'.
9. If, however, it preceded it the possibility must be taken into consideration that it belonged to another embryo that had been crushed; and consequently the restrictions applying to the two embryos must be imposed.
10. Lit., 'until'.
11. So BaH. Cur. edd., 'R. Isaac'.
12. Of the nine months. Limekuta'in (from a rt. meaning 'to lop off').
13. Within a day or two.
14. In consequence of which it is viable.
15. The eighth month consisting of twenty-nine or thirty days together with the odd days of the seventh and the ninth months (cf. prev. n. but one) making up the interval of thirty-three days.
16. Apparently nothing whatever. If the first was born in the seventh month (even if on the last day) and the second in the ninth month the interval would not be one of thirty-three days but one of no less than two months. If they were both born in the seventh month the interval would inevitably be less than thirty-three days (since a Hebrew month never contains more than thirty days). If again, one was born in the seventh and the other in the eighth month the latter could not be viable, whereas the incident which speaks of a welad ('child') and not of nefel ('abortion') seems to refer to two viable children.
17. Of R. Johanan.
18. The first incident described supra.
19. The second of the incidents supra. This is quite possible where both embryos were born in the seventh month, since all agree that a child may be viable even if the full number of seven months was not completed.
20. Lit., 'a woman does not conceive and conceive again'. How then was it possible for a child to be born three months after its predecessor.
21. Should then the first house be unclean.
22. Having been mashed in the water.
23. Since it was mashed in the placenta.
24. 'There is no comparison between one presumption that the embryo was mashed and two such suppositions (that the placenta of one embryo and the embryo of another placenta were mashed)'. Jast.
25. Sc. granted that the embryo was mashed, does not a mashed corpse convey uncleanness?
26. Who are of the same opinion as R. Simeon supra.
27. None whatever (cf. prev. n.).
28. Which might cause one to be an object of ridicule.
29. To make sure of his tradition.
30. By relying on his own intelligence.
31. Sc. asked what might appear to be a ridiculous question.
32. E.V., 'in'.
33. One's knowledge is of the highest order and first hand.
34. E.V., 'or'.
35. In seeking to escape possible ridicule.
36. Prov. XXX, 32; he will not be able to give an authoritative answer when a question on the subject is addressed to him.
37. In his ruling supra that 'Any uncleanness with which anything of a different kind … has been mixed is neutralized'.
38. So MS.M. and BaH. Cur. edd., 'Rabbah'.
39. Though the earth is much less than the corpse-mould.
40. Since in that part of the mixture, at least, the corpse-mould is neutralized and loses its uncleanness.
41. From the prescribed minimum of a ladleful. The whole mixture is consequently clean.

[To turn to] the main text, 'If some earth fell into a ladleful of corpse-mould [the latter remains] unclean, but R. Simeon holds it to be clean. If a ladleful of corpse-mould was scattered in a house the house is unclean,¹⁸  but R. Simeon holds it to be clean'.¹⁹  And both these rulings were required. For if we had been informed of the first one only²⁰  it might have been presumed that only in that case do the Rabbis maintain their view,²¹  since it²²  is collected together but that where it was scattered they agree with R. Simeon, since a succession of incomplete overshadowings²³  is of no consequence.²⁴  And if we had been informed of the latter only²⁵  it might have been presumed that only in that case does R. Simeon maintain his view,²⁶  since a succession of incomplete overshadowings²³  is of no consequence,²⁷  but that in the former case²⁸  he agrees with the Rabbis.²¹  Hence both were required.

Elsewhere we learnt:²⁹  A ladleful and more of the earth of a graveyard³⁰  is unclean,³¹  but R. Simeon regards it as clean.³²  What is the reason of the Rabbis? — Because it is impossible to have 'a ladleful³³  and more' of the earth of a graveyard in which there is not contained a ladleful of corpse-mould.³⁴

Now that you have explained that R. Simeon's reason is because 'its final stage is treated as its first stage',³⁵  what could be his reason in the case of a PLACENTA?³⁶  — R. Johanan replied: Because the law of neutralization in the larger quantity³⁷  has been applied to it.³⁸  R. Johanan in fact follows here³⁹  a view he expressed elsewhere. For R. Johanan stated: R. Simeon and R. Eliezer b. Jacob laid down the same ruling.⁴⁰  R. Simeon laid down the ruling we have just spoken of.⁴¹  R. Eliezer [also laid down the same ruling] for we learnt:⁴²  R. Eliezer b. Jacob ruled, If a beast⁴³  of the class of large cattle discharged a clot of blood, this⁴⁴  shall be buried⁴⁵  and [the beast] is exempt from the law of the firstling;⁴⁶  and in connection with this R. Hiyya taught: It⁴⁴  does not convey uncleanness either through touch or through carriage.⁴⁷  But since it conveys no uncleanness either through touch or through carriage⁴⁸  why⁴⁹  should it be buried? — In order to publish the fact that [the beast] is exempt from the law of the firstling. It thus clearly follows that it⁴⁴  is deemed to be a proper embryo,⁵⁰  then why did R. Hiyya teach, 'It does not convey uncleanness either through touch or through carriage'? — R. Johanan replied: Because the law of neutralization in the larger quantity⁵¹  has been applied to it.⁵²

R. Ammi citing R. Johanan stated: R. Simeon, however,⁵³  agrees that its mother is unclean by reason of childbirth. Said a certain old man to R. Ammi: 'I will explain to you R. Johanan's reason:⁵⁴  For Scripture says, If a woman conceived seed⁵⁵  and bore a man-child etc.,⁵⁶  which implies: Even if she bore in the same manner only as she 'conceived seed'⁵⁷  she is unclean by reason of childbirth.

Resh Lakish ruled: A sac that was beaten up in its fluid assumes the same status as a corpse whose shape was destroyed.⁵⁸  Said R. Johanan to Resh Lakish: Whence do we infer that a corpse whose shape had been destroyed is clean? If it be suggested, From the following statement which R. Shabthai cited in the name of R. Isaac of Magdala or, as others say, R. Isaac of Magdala cited in the name of R. Shabthai, 'If a corpse has been burnt but its shape remained⁵⁹  it is unclean. It once happened that on account of such a corpse⁶⁰  the big⁶¹  doors⁶²  were declared unclean⁶³

1. With which they are mixed in that particular section.
2. The earth also becoming unclean on account of the greater part of the corpse-mould with which it is mixed.
3. We-nafish (cf. marg. n. and Bomb. ed.) Cur. edd., we-nafil (and it falls).
4. So MS.M., Cur. edd. 'Rabbah'.
5. When a corpse is already converted into corpse-mould.
6. When the corpse is buried.
7. That is mixed up with the decaying corpse.
8. Cf. Rashi. Gingilon (or gilgilon, cf. Tosaf.), lit., 'belt' (cf. cingulum); sc. the smallest piece of material buried with a corpse neutralizes the uncleanness of its mould.
9. That mixed with the mould.
10. About the first stage just referred to.
11. Lit., 'which is the corpse that has'.
12. So that there is no foreign matter in the vicinity of the corpse that is likely to be mixed up with its mould.
13. Which on decaying would naturally be mixed up with the decaying matter of the corpse.
14. Which would moulder (cf. prev. n.).
15. Since the foreign matter that mixes with the decaying matter of the corpse neutralizes it and liberates the corpse-mould from its uncleanness.
16. Being regarded as a defective corpse (cf. Naz. 51b) on account of the blood he lost.
17. Tosef. Nid. II, Naz. 51a.
18. On account of ohel or overshadowing.
19. Oh. III, 2.
20. Earth mixed with corpse-mould.
21. That the mould remains unclean.
22. The corpse-mould.
23. Sc. one part of the roof does not overshadow the prescribed minimum of corpse-mould but one part of it overshadows one part of the minimum while another part overshadows another part of it.
24. Lit., 'that one does not make a tent and make a tent again', and the room, therefore, remains clean.
25. Corpse-mould scattered.
26. That the house is clean.
27. Cf. prev. n. but two mut. mut.
28. Earth mixed with corpse-mould.
29. V. marg. gl. Cur. edd. 'in another Baraitha it was taught'.
30. Which consists of a mixture of corpse-mould and earth.
31. The reason is explained presently.
32. The reason is given supra by Raba.
33. Lit., 'to fill a ladle'.
34. The required minimum.
35. Cf. prev. n. but two.
36. Where this comparison cannot be made.
37. There is more blood of labour than mashed embryo.
38. Lit., 'they touched it'. As the blood of labour which is the larger quantity is clean, the lesser quantity of the mashed embryo is neutralized in it, and is, therefore, clean.
39. In the answer just given.
40. That a mashed embryo is neutralized in the larger quantity of the blood of labour.
41. An embryo mashed in a placenta causes no uncleanness.
42. Cf. marg. gl. and Bomb. ed. Cur. edd., 'for it was taught'.
43. Which had never before born any young.
44. The clot.
45. It being possible that it contained a mashed firstling which is sacred.
46. Bek. 21b; sc. its next born young is not regarded as a firstling and need not be given to the priest.
47. Not being regarded as nebelah (v. Glos.) the man who touches or carries it remains clean.
48. From which it follows that it is not regarded as an embryo.
49. Since it is consequently no firstling.
50. Had it not had that status the beast would not have been exempt from the law of the firstling.
51. There being more blood of labour than mashed embryo.
52. The mashed embryo is consequently neutralized and is, therefore, clean.
53. Though he ruled in our Mishnah that the house is clean because THE CHILD MIGHT HAVE BEEN MASHED etc.
54. For subjecting the woman to the uncleanness of childbirth even when the embryo is mashed.
55. So according to A.V, and R.V. and the exposition that follows. J.T., 'be delivered'.
56. Lev. XII, 2.
57. Sc. the former was in a fluid state like the latter.
58. Sc. burned and scattered. Such human remains convey no uncleanness.
59. I.e., its ashes still kept together so that the body appears whole.
60. Lit., 'for him'.
61. No less than four handbreadths wide.
62. Of the house in which it lay.
63. Since the corpse can be carried intact through them.