Niddah 51
סנדל דתנן גבי כריתות למאי הלכתא
is thereby taught?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. since the birth of a sandal is always accompanied by the birth of an embryo how could the former's presence any more than its absence affect the birthright of a subsequently born son whose status would in any case be determined by that of the embryo. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ולרבי שמעון דאמר יוצא דרך דופן ולד מעליא הוא מאי איכא למימר
is regarded as a firstborn son in respect of inheritance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is entitled to a double portion in his deceased father's estate (cf. Deut. XXI, 17). ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
שאם תלד ולד בהיותה עובדת כוכבים וסנדל לאחר שנתגיירה דמייתא קרבן אסנדל
What practical law is taught by that of the sandal of which we learnt in the case of those who incur the penalty of <i>kareth</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 7b in respect of the duty of bringing a sacrifice. Cf. supra n. 6 mut. mut. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
כשהן יוצאין אין יוצאין אלא כרוכין
must bring a sacrifice on account of the sandal. But according to R. Simeon who ruled that 'a foetus born from the side constitutes a valid birth',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 40a; so that a sacrifice is incurred in any case. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
שמע מינה מכרך כריך ליה ולד לסנדל אפלגיה ומשלחיף ליה כלפי רישיה גבי בכורות כגון שיצאו דרך ראשיהם דסנדל קדים ונפיק
— R. Jeremiah replied: That if a woman bears the child while she is an idolatress and the sandal after she has been converted [to Judaism] she<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who incurs no obligation of a sacrifice on account of the child, since she was still an idolatress when it was born. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
רב הונא בר תחליפא משמיה דרבא אמר
The following was said by the Rabbis before R. Papa: But are all these answers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just given, in reply to the objections as to what practical purpose was served by the law of the sandal. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
אפילו תימא מצומצמין ואיפוך שמעתתא גבי בכורות שיצאו דרך מרגלותיהם ולד דאית ביה חיותא סריך ולא נפיק סנדל דלית ביה חיותא שריק ונפיק
tenable? Was it not in fact taught, 'When they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sandal and embryo. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
גבי כריתות שיצאו דרך ראשיהן ולד דאית ביה חיותא מדנפיק רישיה הויא לידה סנדל עד דנפיק רוביה
issue they do so only while clinging to one another'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How then is it possible, for instance, that a woman should be converted between the birth of the child and the birth of the sandal which are simultaneous processes or for one to be born by Caesarean section and the other by natural birth? ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> שליא בבית הבית טמא
— R. Papa replied: From this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From (a) the law relating to those incurring the penalty of kareth which presumes the embryo to precede the sandal and (b) the law of the firstborn which presumes the sandal to precede the embryo and (c) the statement that embryo and sandal issue while clinging to one another. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
לא שהשליא ולד אלא שאין שליא בלא ולד
it may be inferred that the embryo clings to the sandal at the middle of the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the head of the embryo is in contact with the centre part of the sandal. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
נימוק הולד עד שלא יצא
Consequently, as regards the law of the firstborn, [the reference is to a case], for instance, where the embryo<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sandal and embryo clinging to one another in the manner described. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
רבי שמעון בן גמליאל אומר
issued first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. before the birth of the embryo was consummated. As the sandal was the first to issue the embryo cannot be regarded as a firstborn son to be subject to the obligation of redemption from the priest. ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
שליא דומה לקורקבן של תרנגולין שהדקין יוצאין ממנה
As regards the law concerning those punishable by <i>kareth</i> it is a case where they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Clinging to one another in the manner described. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
שופר דתניא כמה יהא שיעור שופר
issued with their feet first; so that the embryo, being animated hangs on and does not easily come out; while the sandal, not being animated, glides and comes speedily out. As regards the law concerning those subject to the penalty of <i>kareth</i> [the reference is to a case] where they issued with their heads first, so that the embryo, being animated is deemed to have consummated its birth as soon as its head came out; while the sandal [being inanimated cannot be deemed to have been born] until its greater part came out.
כדי שיאחזנו בידו ויראה לכאן ולכאן טפח
NOT BECAUSE A PLACENTA IS A CHILD BUT BECAUSE GENERALLY THERE CAN BE NO PLACENTA WITHOUT A CHILD. R. SIMEON SAID, THE CHILD MIGHT HAVE BEEN MASHED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And having been mixed up with the blood of childbearing which was the greater quantity became neutralized in it. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
דא"ר פרנך אמר רבי יוחנן
<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: The placenta in its first stage resembles a thread of the woof and in its final stage it resembles a lupine. It is hollow like a trumpet; and no placenta is smaller than a handbreadth. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel stated: The placenta resembles the craw of a hen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'hens'. ');"><sup>31</sup></span>
אזוב דתני רבי חייא
Five things have a prescribed minimum of a handbreadth, and they are the following. A placenta, a <i>shofar</i>, a spine, a <i>sukkah</i> wall and a bundle of hyssop. As to the placenta there is the ruling just mentioned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the citation from Tosef. Nid. IV ');"><sup>35</sup></span>
אמר רבי חנינא בר פפא דריש שילא איש כפר תמרתא
For it was taught: What must be the size of a <i>shofar</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ram's horn used on the two days of the New Year festival (cf. Lev. XXIII, 24, Num. XXIX, 1). ');"><sup>37</sup></span>
תרתי
a handbreadth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A handbreadth is equal to the size of four thumbs which equals that of four fingers plus. Hence the prescription that when 'held in one's hand', sc. with the four fingers, it must 'be seen at either end', i.e., it must slightly project to make up the required size. ');"><sup>39</sup></span>
חדא היא
What is meant by 'spine'? The ruling which R. Parnak laid down in the name of R. Johanan: The spine of the lulab must be long enough to project a handbreadth above the myrtle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With which it is bound to form with the willows the Tabernacles festive wreath (cf. Lev. XXIII, 40). ');"><sup>40</sup></span>
טפח על טפח על רום טפח מרובע מביא את הטומאה וחוצץ בפני הטומאה
R. Hanina b. Papa stated: Shila of the village of Tamartha discoursed on three Baraithas and two reported traditions dealing with the prescribed size of a handbreadth. 'Two'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Two reported traditions'. ');"><sup>44</sup></span>
אבן היוצא מן התנור טפח ומן הכירה שלש אצבעות חבור
R. Hiyya stated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As an Amora. R. Hiyya lived at the end of the period of the Tannas and the beginning of that of the Amoras. When he 'taught' he was citing a Baraitha but when he 'stated' or 'said' he was speaking only as an Amora. ');"><sup>47</sup></span>
כי קאמרינן היכא דבציר מטפח לא חזי אבל הכא כ"ש דבציר מטפח יד תנור הוא
'The bundle of hyssop must be a handbreadth long'. But are there no others?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose prescribed size is a handbreadth. ');"><sup>48</sup></span>
והאיכא
Is there not in fact [the law that an enclosed space of] one handbreadth square and one handbreadth in height, forming a cube<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus constituting a 'tent' of minimum size. ');"><sup>49</sup></span> conveys uncleanness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By overshadowing. If an unclean object and a clean one were overshadowed by it the latter becomes unclean even though it had not come in direct contact with the former. ');"><sup>50</sup></span> and constitutes a screen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the clean object was above, and the unclean one under such a 'tent'. ');"><sup>51</sup></span> against uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Oh. III, 7. ');"><sup>52</sup></span> — We spoke of the size of 'a handbreadth'; we did not speak of 'a handbreadth square'. But is there not the law concerning a stone that projected one handbreadth from an oven<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it can be used as its handle. ');"><sup>53</sup></span> or three fingerbreadths from a double stove<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. On the rendering of 'double stove' cf. Tosaf. 26b, s.v. [H], contra Rashi. ');"><sup>54</sup></span> in which case it serves as a connecting link?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kel. V, 2. Between an object on the stone and the oven or stove. If the object was unclean its uncleanness is conveyed to the oven or stove and if one of the latter was unclean its uncleanness is conveyed to the object. ');"><sup>55</sup></span> We spoke only of cases where the size of less than a handbreadth is invalid, but here the law would apply all the more to such a case where the size is of less than a handbreadth and it is a handle of the oven. But is there not