## Niddah Daf 26a

###### Niddah 26a:1
[Niddah 26a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:1)

גַּבֵּי בְּכוֹרוֹת, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**with regard to firstborns** (*Bekhorot* 46a), which states that the son who is born after a sandal fetus has the status of a firstborn with regard to inheritance but not with regard to the obligation of redemption from a priest. The Gemara asks: **For what** matter is that ***halakha*** relevant? Since the sandal fetus has a twin that is born with it, the subsequent son is in any case exempt from redemption.


###### Niddah 26a:2
[Niddah 26a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:2)

לַבָּא אַחֲרָיו — בְּכוֹר לְנַחֲלָה, וְאֵין בְּכוֹר לְכֹהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: That *halakha* is relevant **for** a case where the sandal fetus’s twin **comes** out of the womb **after it.** The mishna teaches that as the sandal fetus was born first, its twin is considered **a firstborn with regard to inheritance, but** it is **not a firstborn with regard to** redemption from **a priest.**


###### Niddah 26a:3
[Niddah 26a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:3)

סַנְדָּל דִּתְנַן גַּבֵּי כָּרֵיתוֹת, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the *halakha* with regard to a woman who discharged **a sandal** fetus **that we learned** in a mishna **in** tractate ***Karetot*** (7b), which states that such a woman brings the offering of a woman who gave birth. The Gemara asks: **For what** matter is that ***halakha*** relevant? In any case that woman is obligated to bring the offering of a woman who gave birth, due to the twin.


###### Niddah 26a:4
[Niddah 26a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:4)

שֶׁאִם תֵּלֵד וָלָד דֶּרֶךְ דּוֹפֶן, וְסַנְדָּל דֶּרֶךְ רֶחֶם — דְּמַיְיתָא קׇרְבָּן אַסַּנְדָּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the mishna to state **that if** a woman **gives birth to** a full-fledged **offspring by means of caesarean section, and** to **a sandal** fetus in a regular manner **through** the **womb, in** such a case **she brings an offering for** giving birth to the **sandal** fetus, despite the fact that she does not bring an offering for the full-fledged offspring, as one does not bring an offering for a birth by caesarean section.


###### Niddah 26a:5
[Niddah 26a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:5)

וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: יוֹצֵא דֶּרֶךְ דּוֹפֶן וָלָד מְעַלְּיָא הוּא — מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But according to Rabbi Shimon, who said** that an offspring which is **delivered by means of caesarean section is** considered **a full-fledged offspring,** and its mother does bring an offering, **what is there to say?** Why is it necessary for the mishna to state this *halakha* if the woman must bring an offering regardless of the sandal fetus?


###### Niddah 26a:6
[Niddah 26a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: שֶׁאִם תֵּלֵד וָלָד בְּגַיּוּתָהּ, וְסַנְדָּל לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירָה — דְּמַיְיתָא קׇרְבָּן אַסַּנְדָּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya says:** It is necessary for the mishna to state **that if** a woman **gives birth to** the full-fledged **offspring while she is a gentile,** when the *halakhot* of a woman after childbirth do not apply to her, and she immediately converts to Judaism **and** gives birth to the **sandal** fetus **after she converted** and became obligated to observe the *halakhot* of a woman after childbirth, **that she brings an offering for the sandal** fetus.


###### Niddah 26a:7
[Niddah 26a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:7)

אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, וּמִי אִיתַנְהוּ לְהָנֵי שִׁינּוּיֵי? וְהָא תַנְיָא: כְּשֶׁהֵן יוֹצְאִין — אֵין יוֹצְאִין אֶלָּא כְּרוּכִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages said** the answers to these questions **before Rav Pappa, and** they asked him: **And are these answers** correct? Can it be suggested that the sandal fetus was born before or after the twin fetus? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **when** a sandal fetus and the full-fledged offspring **exit** the womb, **they exit only wrapped** around one another?


###### Niddah 26a:8
[Niddah 26a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:8)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שְׁמַע מִינָּה, מִכְרַךְ כָּרֵיךְ לֵיהּ וָלָד לְסַנְדָּל אַפַּלְגֵיהּ, וּמְשַׁלְחֵיף לֵיהּ כְּלַפֵּי רֵישֵׁיהּ. גַּבֵּי בְּכוֹרוֹת, כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצְאוּ דֶּרֶךְ רָאשֵׁיהֶם, דְּסַנְדָּל קָדֵים וְנָפֵיק. גַּבֵּי כָּרֵיתוֹת, שֶׁיָּצְאוּ דֶּרֶךְ מַרְגְּלוֹתֵיהֶם, דְּוָלָד קָדֵים וְנָפֵיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** in response: **Conclude from it** that the sandal fetus and its twin do not lie side by side, but rather the full-fledged **offspring encounters the sandal** fetus **at half its** height, i.e., the head of the full-fledged offspring presses into the abdomen of the sandal fetus. **And** when they are born, the full-fledged offspring **pushes** the sandal fetus **toward** the direction **its head** is pointing, to the entrance of the womb, causing the sandal fetus to be born first. Therefore, the mishna **with regard to firstborns** can be explained as referring to a case **where** the fetuses **exited** the womb **with their heads** first, **as** in such a case the **sandal** fetus **emerges first.** By contrast, the mishna **in** tractate ***Karetot*** is referring to a case **where they emerged with their feet** first, **as** in such a case the full-fledged **offspring emerges first.**


###### Niddah 26a:9
[Niddah 26a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:9)

רַב הוּנָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא מְצוּמְצָמִין, וְאֵיפוֹךְ שְׁמַעְתָּתָא. גַּבֵּי בְּכוֹרוֹת — שֶׁיָּצְאוּ דֶּרֶךְ מַרְגְּלוֹתֵיהֶם, וָלָד דְּאִית בֵּיהּ חִיּוּתָא סָרֵיךְ וְלָא נָפֵיק, סַנְדָּל דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ חִיּוּתָא שָׁרֵיק וְנָפֵיק. גַּבֵּי כָּרֵיתוֹת — שֶׁיָּצְאוּ דֶּרֶךְ רָאשֵׁיהֶן, וָלָד דְּאִית בֵּיהּ חִיּוּתָא מִדְּנָפֵיק רֵישֵׁיהּ הָוְיָא לֵידָה, סַנְדָּל עַד דְּנָפֵיק רוּבֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna bar Taḥlifa says in the name of Rava: You** may **even say** that the two fetuses lie **precisely** side by side, **and** you should **reverse** Rav Pappa’s ***halakha*** so that it reads as follows: **With regard to firstborns,** the reference is to a case **where** the fetuses **emerged with their feet** first. In such a case, the full-fledged **offspring, which has life, hangs on and does not emerge** so quickly, whereas the **sandal** fetus, **which does not have life, slides** out **and emerges** first. **In** tractate ***Karetot*,** it is referring to a case **where** the fetuses **came out with their heads** first. In such an instance, with regard to the full-fledged **offspring, which has life, once its head emerges it is** considered **a birth,** whereas the **sandal** fetus is considered to have been born **only when the majority of its** body **emerges.**


###### Niddah 26a:10
[Niddah 26a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:10)

**מַתְנִי'** שִׁלְיָא בַּבַּיִת — הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, לֹא שֶׁהַשִּׁלְיָא וָלָד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין שִׁלְיָא בְּלֹא וָלָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If there is **an afterbirth in the house, the house is ritually impure,** in the sense that everything under the roof contracts impurity imparted by a corpse. The reason is **not that** the status of **an afterbirth** is that of **an offspring; rather,** it is **that there is no afterbirth without an offspring.** It is clear that the afterbirth contained an offspring that disintegrated after the miscarriage. That offspring rendered the contents of the house impure.


###### Niddah 26a:11
[Niddah 26a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:11)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: נִימּוֹק הַוָּלָד, עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says:** The house does not become a tent over a corpse, as although there had been an offspring in the afterbirth, **the offspring disintegrated,** turning to blood, **before it emerged** from the womb, and it was negated by the majority of blood that accompanied the miscarriage.


###### Niddah 26a:12
[Niddah 26a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:12)

**גְּמָ'** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שִׁלְיָא — תְּחִלָּתָהּ דּוֹמָה לְחוּט שֶׁל עֵרֶב, וְסוֹפָהּ דּוֹמָה כְּתוֹרְמוֹס, וַחֲלוּלָה כַּחֲצוֹצֶרֶת, וְאֵין שִׁלְיָא פְּחוּתָה מִטֶּפַח. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שִׁלְיָא דּוֹמֶה לְקוּרְקְבָן שֶׁל תַּרְנְגוֹלִין, שֶׁהַדַּקִּין יוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the appearance of the afterbirth: At **the outset of** the pregnancy, the **afterbirth** is so thin that it is **similar to a string of the woof, and** at the **end of** the pregnancy it is much wider, **similar** in width **to a lupine. And** the afterbirth is **hollow like a trumpet, and there is no afterbirth** whose length is **less than a handbreadth. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: An afterbirth is similar to the craw of roosters, from which the small** intestine **emerges.**


###### Niddah 26a:13
[Niddah 26a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:13)

תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא זְעֵירָא דְמִן חַבְרַיָּא — חֲמִשָּׁה שִׁיעוּרָן טֶפַח, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: שִׁלְיָא, שׁוֹפָר, שִׁדְרָה, דּוֹפֶן סוּכָּה, וְהָאֵזוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since the *baraita* states that the minimum length of an afterbirth is a handbreadth, the Gemara cites another *baraita* that lists different items whose halakhic status is dependent on a minimum measure of a handbreadth. **It is taught** by **Rabbi Oshaya, the youngest [*ze’eira*] of the company [*demin ḥavrayya*]** of Sages: There are **five** items **whose** minimum **measure** is one **handbreadth, and these are they: An afterbirth,** the **shofar** for blowing on Rosh HaShana, the **spine** of a *lulav* that must be taken on *Sukkot*, the width of **the wall of a *sukka*, and the hyssop [*veha’ezov*].** Hyssop is used for the purification of a leper and for the preparation of the ashes of a red heifer in order to sprinkle them with water on someone who is ritually impure due to impurity imparted by a corpse.


###### Niddah 26a:14
[Niddah 26a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:14)

שִׁלְיָא — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. שׁוֹפָר — דְּתַנְיָא: כַּמָּה יְהֵא שִׁיעוּר שׁוֹפָר? פֵּירֵשׁ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: כְּדֵי שֶׁיֹּאחֲזֶנּוּ בְּיָדוֹ, וְיֵרָאֶה לְכָאן וּלְכָאן טֶפַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: The *halakha* with regard to **an afterbirth is that which we stated** above. The *halakha* of **a shofar** is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **How much is the measure** of the length **of a shofar** for blowing on Rosh HaShana? **Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel explained:** It must be long **enough that when one holds it in his hand** with four fingers, **it can be seen** protruding **on one side** of his hand **and on the other side,** i.e., at least one **handbreadth.**


###### Niddah 26a:15
[Niddah 26a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:15)

שִׁדְרָה מָה הִיא? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי פַּרְנָךְ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שִׁדְרוֹ שֶׁל לוּלָב צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹצֵא מִן הַהֲדַס טֶפַח. דּוֹפֶן סוּכָּה — דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁתַּיִם כְּהִלְכָתָן, שְׁלִישִׁית אֲפִילּוּ טֶפַח. אֵזוֹב — דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אֵזוֹב טֶפַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is** the *halakha* with regard to **a spine** of a *lulav*? It is **as Rabbi Parnakh said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The spine of a *lulav* must protrude** at least one **handbreadth beyond the myrtle branch** that is tied together with it. The *halakha* of **the wall of a *sukka*** is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: A *sukka* is valid only if it has **two** full-fledged partitions **in the standard sense,** completely closing each of those two sides and measuring at least seven handbreadths, **and a third** wall that measures **even** one **handbreadth.** If the third wall is less than a handbreadth long, the *sukka* is unfit. Finally, the *halakha* with regard to the **hyssop** is stated in a *baraita* **that Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches:** The **hyssop** used for the purification of a leper and for the preparation of the ashes of a red heifer must measure at least one **handbreadth.**


###### Niddah 26a:16
[Niddah 26a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:16)

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא: דָּרֵישׁ שֵׁילָא אִישׁ כְּפַר תְּמַרְתָּא — תְּלָת מַתְנְיָתָא, וְתַרְתֵּי שְׁמַעְתָּתָא, שִׁיעוּרָא טֶפַח. תַּרְתֵּי? חֲדָא הִיא! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אֵימָא — אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אֵזוֹב טֶפַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says** that **Sheila of Kefar Temarta taught** as a mnemonic: There are **three *baraitot*,** with regard to an afterbirth, a shofar, and the wall of a *sukka*, **and** there are **two** independent ***halakhot*** of *amora’im*, of the spine of a *lulav* and the hyssop, where the minimum **measure** of one **handbreadth** is required. The Gemara asks: Are there **two** *halakhot* of *amora’im* in this list? There **is** only **one** statement, with regard to the spine of a *lulav*. The *halakha* of the hyssop is taught in a *baraita* by Rabbi Ḥiyya. **Abaye says:** Revise the wording of that statement, so that it should not read that Rabbi Ḥiyya taught a *baraita*; rather, **say** that **Rabbi Ḥiyya says** himself that the **hyssop** must measure at least one **handbreadth,** i.e., that *halakha* is not taught in a *baraita*.


###### Niddah 26a:17
[Niddah 26a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:17)

וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָאִיכָּא טֶפַח עַל טֶפַח עַל רוּם טֶפַח מְרוּבָּע — מֵבִיא אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה, וְחוֹצֵץ בִּפְנֵי הַטּוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And are there no more** cases where the minimum measure is one handbreadth, other than those five listed by Rabbi Oshaya? **But isn’t there** the following mishna (*Oholot* 3:7) that deals with the minimum size of a tent that transmits ritual impurity: **A cubic** space measuring one **handbreadth by** one **handbreadth with a height of** one **handbreadth transmits ritual impurity.** If a corpse is in that space, the impurity is transmitted to all people, vessels, and food in that space. **And** a space of that size **serves as a barrier before,** i.e., stops the spread of, **ritual impurity** beyond that space.


###### Niddah 26a:18
[Niddah 26a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:18)

טֶפַח קָאָמְרִינַן, טֶפַח עַל טֶפַח לָא קָאָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **We said** that there are five items whose minimum measure is one **handbreadth; we did not say** anything about a space whose measure is one **handbreadth by** one **handbreadth.**


###### Niddah 26a:19
[Niddah 26a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:19)

וְהָא אִיכָּא אֶבֶן הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַתַּנּוּר טֶפַח, וּמִן הַכִּירָה שָׁלֹשׁ אֶצְבָּעוֹת — חִבּוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **But isn’t there** the following mishna (*Kelim* 5:2): **A stone that protrudes from the oven** by one **handbreadth,** which is used as a handle for lifting and carrying the oven, **and** similarly a stone that protrudes **from the stove three fingerbreadths** is considered as having **a connection** to the oven or stove with regard to ritual impurity. Consequently, if the oven or stove becomes impure, then the stone handle, which is classified as part of the oven, is likewise rendered impure. If the handle is longer than that, the additional length will be removed, so it is not considered to be part of the oven.


###### Niddah 26a:20
[Niddah 26a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:20)

כִּי קָאָמְרִינַן הֵיכָא דִּבְצִיר מִטֶּפַח לָא חֲזֵי, אֲבָל הָכָא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דִּבְצִיר מִטֶּפַח — יַד תַּנּוּר הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **When we said** that there are five items whose minimum measure is one handbreadth, we were referring to cases **where** if it **less than** one **handbreadth** it **is unfit** for the purpose of the item. **But here,** where a protruding stone one handbreadth long is considered a handle of the oven, it is **all the more so** the case **that** a protruding stone **less than** one **handbreadth** long **is** considered **a handle of** the **oven.**


###### Niddah 26a:21
[Niddah 26a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/26a:21)

וְהָאִיכָּא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But aren’t there**