Niddah 54

פרידה אחת עפר (ונפיל) ליה שיעורא

one particle of earth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With which they are mixed in that particular section. ');">¹</span>

אלא אמר רבה

so that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The earth also becoming unclean on account of the greater part of the corpse-mould with which it is mixed. ');">²</span>

היינו טעמא דרבי שמעון סופו כתחלתו מה תחלתו נעשה לו דבר אחר גנגילון אף סופו נעשה לו דבר אחר גנגילון

the quantity is increased'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We-nafish (cf. marg. n. and Bomb. ed.) Cur. edd., we-nafil (and it falls). ');">³</span>

מאי היא

The fact, however, is, said Raba,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So MS.M., Cur. edd. 'Rabbah'. ');">⁴</span>

דתניא

that this is the reason of R. Simeon: Its final stage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a corpse is already converted into corpse-mould. ');">⁵</span>

איזהו מת שיש לו רקב ואיזהו מת שאין לו רקב

is treated as its first stage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the corpse is buried. ');">⁶</span>

נקבר ערום בארון של שיש או ע"ג רצפה של אבנים זהו מת שיש לו רקב ואיזהו מת שאין לו רקב נקבר בכסותו או בארון של עץ או ע"ג רצפה של לבנים זהו מת שאין לו רקב

As in its first stage any other matter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is mixed up with the decaying corpse. ');">⁷</span>

ולא אמרו רקב אלא למת בלבד למעוטי הרוג דלא

becomes its antidote<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁸</span>

גופא

so also in its final stage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a corpse is already converted into corpse-mould. ');">⁵</span>

מלא תרוד רקב שנפל לתוכו עפר כל שהוא טמא ור' שמעון מטהר

any other matter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That mixed with the mould. ');">⁹</span>

מלא תרוד רקב שנתפזר בבית הבית טמא ורבי שמעון מטהר

becomes its antidote,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁸</span>

וצריכא

What is that law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' About the first stage just referred to. ');">¹⁰</span>

דאי אשמעינן קמייתא בההיא קאמרי רבנן משום דמכניף אבל נתפזר אימא מודו לו לרבי שמעון דאין מאהיל וחוזר ומאהיל

— It was taught: In what circumstances is a corpse subject to the uncleanness of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which is the corpse that has'. ');">¹¹</span>

ואי אשמעינן בהא בהא אמר רבי שמעון דאין מאהיל וחוזר ומאהיל אבל בהא אימא מודה להו לרבנן צריכא

corpse-mould and in what circumstances is a corpse not subject to the uncleanness of corpse-mould? If a corpse was buried naked in a marble sarcophagus or on a stone floor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there is no foreign matter in the vicinity of the corpse that is likely to be mixed up with its mould. ');">¹²</span>

תניא אידך

it is one that is subject to the uncleanness of corpse-mould. And in what circumstances is a corpse not subject to the uncleanness of corpse-mould? If it was buried in its shroud,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which on decaying would naturally be mixed up with the decaying matter of the corpse. ');">¹³</span>

מלא תרוד ועוד עפר בית הקברות טמא

or in a wooden coffin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would moulder (cf. prev. n.). ');">¹⁴</span>

ורבי שמעון מטהר

or on a brick floor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would moulder (cf. prev. n.). ');">¹⁴</span>

מאי טעמייהו דרבנן

it is one that is not subject to the uncleanness of corpse-mould.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the foreign matter that mixes with the decaying matter of the corpse neutralizes it and liberates the corpse-mould from its uncleanness. ');">¹⁵</span>

לפי שא"א למלא תרוד ועוד עפר בית הקברות שאין בו מלא תרוד רקב

And [the Sages] spoke of the uncleanness of corpse-mould only in the case of one who died, thus excluding a killed person who<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being regarded as a defective corpse (cf. Naz. 51b) on account of the blood he lost. ');">¹⁶</span>

השתא דאמרת טעמא דרבי שמעון משום סופו כתחלתו גבי שליא מאי טעמא

is not [subject to this law].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Nid. II, Naz. 51a. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רבי יוחנן

[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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of ohel or overshadowing. ');">¹⁸</span>

משום בטול ברוב נגעו בה

but R. Simeon holds it to be clean'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Oh. III, 2. ');">¹⁹</span>

ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר רבי יוחנן

And both these rulings were required. For if we had been informed of the first one only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Earth mixed with corpse-mould. ');">²⁰</span>

רבי שמעון ור"א בן יעקב אמרו דבר אחד

it might have been presumed that only in that case do the Rabbis maintain their view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the mould remains unclean. ');">²¹</span>

רבי שמעון הא דאמרן

since it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The corpse-mould. ');">²²</span>

רבי אליעזר דתניא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר

is collected together but that where it was scattered they agree with R. Simeon, since a succession of incomplete overshadowings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">²³</span>

בהמה גסה ששפעה חררת דם הרי זו תקבר ופטורה מן הבכורה

is of no consequence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that one does not make a tent and make a tent again', and the room, therefore, remains clean. ');">²⁴</span>

ותני רבי חייא עלה

And if we had been informed of the latter only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Corpse-mould scattered. ');">²⁵</span>

אינה מטמאה לא במגע ולא במשא

it might have been presumed that only in that case does R. Simeon maintain his view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the house is clean. ');">²⁶</span>

ומאחר שאינה מטמאה לא במגע ולא במשא אמאי תקבר

since a succession of incomplete overshadowings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">²³</span>

כדי לפרסמה שהיא פטורה מן הבכורה

is of no consequence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but two mut. mut. ');">²⁷</span>

אלמא ולד מעליא הוא ואמאי תני רבי חייא אינה מטמאה לא במגע ולא במשא

but that in the former case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Earth mixed with corpse-mould. ');">²⁸</span>

אמר רבי יוחנן

he agrees with the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the mould remains unclean. ');">²¹</span>

משום בטול ברוב נגעו בה

Hence both were required.

א"ר אמי אמר רבי יוחנן

Elsewhere we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. marg. gl. Cur. edd. 'in another Baraitha it was taught'. ');">²⁹</span>

ומודה רבי שמעון שאמו טמאה לידה

A ladleful and more of the earth of a graveyard<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which consists of a mixture of corpse-mould and earth. ');">³⁰</span>

אמר ההוא סבא לרבי אמי

is unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is explained presently. ');">³¹</span>

אסברא לך טעמא דרבי יוחנן דאמר קרא (ויקרא יב, ב) אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר וגו' אפילו לא ילדה אלא כעין שהזריעה טמאה לידה

but R. Simeon regards it as clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason is given supra by Raba. ');">³²</span>

ריש לקיש אמר

What is the reason of the Rabbis? — Because it is impossible to have 'a ladleful<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to fill a ladle'. ');">³³</span>

שפיר שטרפוהו במימיו נעשה כמת שנתבלבלה צורתו

and more' of the earth of a graveyard in which there is not contained a ladleful of corpse-mould.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The required minimum. ');">³⁴</span>

אמר ליה רבי יוחנן לריש לקיש

Now that you have explained that R. Simeon's reason is because 'its final stage is treated as its first stage',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. but two. ');">³⁵</span>

מת שנתבלבלה צורתו מנלן דטהור

what could be his reason in the case of a PLACENTA?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where this comparison cannot be made. ');">³⁶</span>

אילימא מהא דאמר רבי שבתאי אמר ר' יצחק מגדלאה ואמרי לה א"ר יצחק מגדלאה א"ר שבתאי

— R. Johanan replied: Because the law of neutralization in the larger quantity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is more blood of labour than mashed embryo. ');">³⁷</span>

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>