Commentary for Niddah 54:44

מת שנשרף ושלדו קיימת טמא מעשה היה וטמאו לו פתחים גדולים

has been applied to it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">³⁸</span> R. Johanan in fact follows here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the answer just given. ');">³⁹</span> a view he expressed elsewhere. For R. Johanan stated: R. Simeon and R. Eliezer b. Jacob laid down the same ruling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a mashed embryo is neutralized in the larger quantity of the blood of labour. ');">⁴⁰</span> R. Simeon laid down the ruling we have just spoken of.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An embryo mashed in a placenta causes no uncleanness. ');">⁴¹</span> R. Eliezer [also laid down the same ruling] for we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. marg. gl. and Bomb. ed. Cur. edd., 'for it was taught'. ');">⁴²</span> R. Eliezer b. Jacob ruled, If a beast<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which had never before born any young. ');">⁴³</span> of the class of large cattle discharged a clot of blood, this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The clot. ');">⁴⁴</span> shall be buried<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being possible that it contained a mashed firstling which is sacred. ');">⁴⁵</span> and [the beast] is exempt from the law of the firstling;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bek. 21b; sc. its next born young is not regarded as a firstling and need not be given to the priest. ');">⁴⁶</span> and in connection with this R. Hiyya taught: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The clot. ');">⁴⁴</span> does not convey uncleanness either through touch or through carriage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not being regarded as nebelah (v. Glos.) the man who touches or carries it remains clean. ');">⁴⁷</span> But since it conveys no uncleanness either through touch or through carriage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which it follows that it is not regarded as an embryo. ');">⁴⁸</span> why<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is consequently no firstling. ');">⁴⁹</span> 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 it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The clot. ');">⁴⁴</span> is deemed to be a proper embryo,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had it not had that status the beast would not have been exempt from the law of the firstling. ');">⁵⁰</span> 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 quantity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There being more blood of labour than mashed embryo. ');">⁵¹</span> has been applied to it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mashed embryo is consequently neutralized and is, therefore, clean. ');">⁵²</span> R. Ammi citing R. Johanan stated: R. Simeon, however,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he ruled in our Mishnah that the house is clean because THE CHILD MIGHT HAVE BEEN MASHED etc. ');">⁵³</span> 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For subjecting the woman to the uncleanness of childbirth even when the embryo is mashed. ');">⁵⁴</span> For Scripture says, If a woman conceived seed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So according to A.V, and R.V. and the exposition that follows. J.T., 'be delivered'. ');">⁵⁵</span> and bore a man-child etc.,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 2. ');">⁵⁶</span> which implies: Even if she bore in the same manner only as she 'conceived seed'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the former was in a fluid state like the latter. ');">⁵⁷</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. burned and scattered. Such human remains convey no uncleanness. ');">⁵⁸</span> 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 remained<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., its ashes still kept together so that the body appears whole. ');">⁵⁹</span> it is unclean. It once happened that on account of such a corpse<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for him'. ');">⁶⁰</span> the big<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No less than four handbreadths wide. ');">⁶¹</span> doors<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the house in which it lay. ');">⁶²</span> were declared unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the corpse can be carried intact through them. ');">⁶³</span>

Explore commentary for Niddah 54:44. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.