## Niddah Daf 26b

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

תַּנּוּרֵי בָּנוֹת טֶפַח! דְּתַנְיָא: תַּנּוּר תְּחִלָּתוֹ אַרְבָּעָה וּשְׁיָרָיו אַרְבָּעָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
toy **ovens with** which **girls** play, whose minimum measure with regard to ritual impurity is also one **handbreadth? As it is taught** in a mishna (*Kelim* 5:1): A clay **oven** in **its original,** unbroken, **state** is susceptible to ritual impurity if it is **four** handbreadths tall. **And** with regard to an oven that became impure and was subsequently broken, if **its remains** include a piece **four** handbreadths tall, that piece remains impure. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


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

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּגָדוֹל, אֲבָל בְּקָטָן — תְּחִלָּתוֹ כֹּל שֶׁהוּא מִשֶּׁתִּגָּמֵר מְלַאכְתּוֹ, וּשְׁיָרָיו בְּרוּבּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say: In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said **in** the case of **a large** oven, made for regular use; **but with regard to a small** oven made for girls to play with, in **its original state, any size** is sufficient for it to be susceptible to contract impurity. **Once its construction is completed,** if the oven then becomes impure and is subsequently broken, if **its remains include** a piece that contains **the majority of** the oven, that piece remains impure.


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

וְכַמָּה ״כֹּל שֶׁהוּא״? אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: טֶפַח, שֶׁכֵּן עוֹשִׂין תַּנּוּרֵי בָּנוֹת טֶפַח. בִּפְלוּגְתָּא לָא קָמַיְירֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **And how** small is the size defined by the mishna as **any size? Rabbi Yannai says:** One **handbreadth, as** people **fashion** toy **ovens for girls** one **handbreadth** high. This is another example of an item that has a minimum measure of one handbreadth, in addition to the five items listed by Rabbi Oshaya. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Oshaya **is not speaking of** matters that are subject to **dispute,** such as the minimum measure of an oven.


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

הַשְׁתָּא דַאֲתֵית לְהָכִי, הָא נָמֵי פְּלוּגְתָּא הִיא. דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא אָמְרוּ טֶפַח אֶלָּא מִן הַתַּנּוּר וְלַכּוֹתֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **Now that you have arrived at this** answer, the fact that Rabbi Oshaya does not mention a stone protruding from an oven can be explained in the same manner, since **this** *halakha* **is also** subject to **a dispute. As the latter clause** of that mishna (*Kelim* 5:2) **teaches** that **Rabbi Yehuda said:** When the Sages **said** that a stone protruding from an oven is considered a handle if it protrudes one **handbreadth,** they said so **only** with regard to a stone that protrudes **from the oven and toward the wall.** If the stone protrudes more than that, it is not considered a handle, as it is likely to be removed so that the oven can be moved closer to the wall. But if the stone protrudes toward the airspace of the house, it is considered an oven handle even if it protrudes more than one handbreadth.


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

וְהָאִיכָּא מִסְגֶּרֶת טֶפַח! בְּדִכְתִיבָן לָא קָא מַיְירֵי, וְהָאִיכָּא כַּפּוֹרֶת טֶפַח, בְּקָדָשִׁים לָא קָמַיְירֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But isn’t there** the **frame** of the Table in the Temple, which is one **handbreadth** wide, as stated in the Torah (Exodus 25:25)? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Oshaya **is not dealing with** matters **that are written** in the Torah. The Gemara further asks: **But isn’t there the Ark Cover,** which is one **handbreadth** thick, and its measure is not written explicitly in the Torah? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Oshaya **is not dealing with consecrated** items.


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

וְהָאִיכָּא דַּיָּהּ לַקּוֹרָה שֶׁהִיא רְחָבָה טֶפַח! בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא קָמַיְירֵי, אֶלָּא בְּדִכְתִיבָן וְלָא מְפָרְשִׁי שִׁיעוּרַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t there** the *halakha* of a cross beam, which is placed over the entrance to an alleyway in order to permit carrying items in the alleyway on Shabbat, and the *halakha* is that **it is enough for** a cross **beam to be** one **handbreadth wide?** The Gemara answers: Rabbi Oshaya **is not dealing with matters of rabbinic law. Rather,** he is speaking only **of** matters **that are written** in the Torah **but whose measure is not explicit** in the Torah.


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

יָתֵיב רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים תּוֹלִין אֶת הַשִּׁלְיָא בַּוָּלָד, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta sat before Rav Kahana, and he sat and said** that **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** For **all of the first three days** after a woman gives birth, if she discharges afterbirth, **we attribute the afterbirth to** the **offspring.** There is no concern that this afterbirth indicates the miscarriage of another offspring. **From this** point **forward,** once three days have passed since the birth, if the woman discharges an afterbirth, **we are concerned that** there might have been **another offspring** in the afterbirth, and the *halakhot* of a woman who discharged an offspring apply to her.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּמִי אָמַר רַב הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב: אֵין הַוָּלָד מִתְעַכֵּב אַחַר חֲבֵירוֹ כְּלוּם! אִישְׁתִּיק. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא כָּאן בְּנֵפֶל, כָּאן בְּבֶן קַיָּימָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Kahana **said to** Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel: **And did Rav say this? But didn’t Rav say** that **an offspring does not remain** in the womb **at all after another** offspring was born? Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel **was silent.** Rav Kahana **said to him: Perhaps** there is no contradiction between Rav’s two statements, as **here,** where he indicates that a second offspring can emerge even three days after the first, the reference is **to** a case where the first offspring is **a non-viable newborn,** whereas **there,** in the statement that a second offspring does not remain in the womb after the first offspring was born, he is referring **to** a case where the first offspring is **a viable** offspring.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ לִשְׁמַעְתְּתֵיהּ דְּרַב בְּפֵירוּשׁ? אָמַר רַב הָכִי: הִפִּילָה נֵפֶל וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא — כָּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים תּוֹלִין אֶת הַשִּׁלְיָא בַּוָּלָד, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר. יָלְדָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא — אֲפִילּוּ מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel **said to him:** Are **you** the one who **says** this explanation **of Rav’s *halakha*** of your own accord? Indeed, **Rav said this explicitly:** If a woman **discharged a non-viable newborn and subsequently discharged an afterbirth,** for **all of the first three days we attribute the afterbirth to** the **offspring. From this** point **forward,** if she discharged an afterbirth **we are concerned that** it contained **another offspring.** If she **gave birth** to a viable offspring **and subsequently discharged an afterbirth, even from now until ten days** after the birth **we are not concerned that** the afterbirth contained **another offspring.**


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

שְׁמוּאֵל וְתַלְמִידִי דְּרַב וְרַב יְהוּדָה הֲווֹ יָתְבִי, חָלֵיף וְאָזֵיל רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מְנַשְּׁיָא מִדְּוִיל לְאַפַּיְיהוּ, בָּאלַי וְאָתֵי. אֲמַר: אָתֵי לַן גַּבְרָא דְּרָמֵינַן לֵיהּ בְּגִילָא דְּחִטְּתָא וּמִרְמֵי וּמִדְחֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Shmuel, Rav’s students, and Rav Yehuda were sitting** together. **Rav Yosef, son of Rav Menashya of D’vil, was passing** by **and walking toward them,** i.e., he was walking in their direction, and **he was hurrying and coming** along. Shmuel **said** to his company: **A man is coming toward us whom one can knock** down **with a straw of wheat, and he falls and stays down.** In other words, he cannot refute even a minor challenge to his opinions.


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

אַדְּהָכִי אֲתָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל: מַאי אָמַר רַב בְּשִׁלְיָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב: אֵין תּוֹלִין אֶת הַשִּׁלְיָא אֶלָּא בְּדָבָר שֶׁל קְיָימָא. שַׁיְילִינְהוּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְכׇל תַּלְמִידֵי דְּרַב, וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: הָכִי. הֲדַר חַזְיֵיהּ לְרַב יְהוּדָה בִּישׁוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In the meantime,** Rav Yosef, son of Rav Menashya, **arrived. Shmuel said to him: What did Rav say with regard to an afterbirth?** Rav Yosef **said to him** that **this is what Rav said: One attributes an afterbirth only to a viable item,** i.e., a viable offspring. **Shmuel** subsequently **asked all of Rav’s students** who were present whether Rav actually said this, **and they said to him** that Rav indeed said **so.** Shmuel **then looked at Rav Yehuda harshly,** as Rav Yehuda was also a student of Rav, but he had not transmitted this *halakha* to Shmuel after Rav’s death.


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

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן שָׁאוּל מֵרַבִּי: הַמַּפֶּלֶת דְּמוּת עוֹרֵב וְשִׁלְיָא מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין תּוֹלִין אֶלָּא בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּמִינוֹ שִׁלְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul asked Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi: In the case of a woman **who discharges** an item in **the form of a crow and** there is also **an afterbirth, what is** the *halakha*? Is the afterbirth attributed to the discharged item, or is there concern that the afterbirth might have contained another offspring? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **said to him: One attributes** an afterbirth **only to an item whose species has an afterbirth.** Since crows do not have an afterbirth, the afterbirth cannot be associated with that discharged item.


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

קְשׁוּרָה בּוֹ מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁאַלְתָּ. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: הַמַּפֶּלֶת מִין בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף וְשִׁלְיָא עִמָּהֶן, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַשִּׁלְיָא קְשׁוּרָה עִמָּהֶן — אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר, אֵין שִׁלְיָא קְשׁוּרָה עִמָּהֶן — חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְוָלָד אַחֵר, הֲרֵינִי מֵטִיל עֲלֵיהֶן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul then asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If the afterbirth is **tied to** the item that has the form of a crow, **what is** the *halakha*? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **said to him: You asked** about **a matter that does not exist.** Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul **raised an objection to** this response from a *baraita*: With regard to a woman **who discharges a type of domesticated animal, undomesticated animal, or bird, and** she discharges **an afterbirth with them,** in an instance **when** the **afterbirth is tied to them we are not concerned about** the possibility of **another offspring.** If the **afterbirth is not tied to them, we are concerned that** the afterbirth contained **another offspring.** And **I impose upon them**