Bechorot Daf 22 (בכורות דף כ״ב)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (22a)

Segment 1

TYPE: תירוץ

Burial is required to publicize that the mother is now exempt from the firstborn law

Hebrew/Aramaic:

כְּדֵי לְפַרְסְמָהּ שֶׁנִּפְטְרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara answers: It must be buried in order to publicize that the animal is exempt from having its future offspring counted a firstborn.

קלאוד על הדף:

This finishes the question that closed 21b. Rabbi Chiyya taught that the congealed mass imparts no impurity, so why bury it? The answer is that burial is not about the mass itself but about the mother. A public burial makes it known that this animal has already given birth, so that no one will later treat her next male offspring as a firstborn.

Key Terms:

• לְפַרְסְמָהּ = to publicize it — to make the animal’s status known
• נִפְטְרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה = she is exempt from the firstborn law — her future offspring will not be firstborn

Segment 2

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

If the mass is a true offspring, why is it not impure? Rabbi Yochanan: it is nullified in the majority

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לְמֵימְרָא דְּוָלָד מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, וְאַמַּאי אֵין מְטַמֵּא לֹא בְּמַגָּע וְלֹא בְּמַשָּׂא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשּׁוּם בִּיטּוּל בְּרוֹב נָגְעוּ בָּהּ.

English Translation:

The Gemara notes with regard to the ruling of the mishna that the animal is exempt from having any future offspring counted as firstborn: That is to say that the expelled mass is a full-fledged offspring. But if so, why doesn’t it impart ritual impurity, neither through physical contact nor through carrying? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is due to the halakhic nullification of a forbidden substance in a majority of permitted substances that the Sages touched upon it, in order to exclude it from impurity through contact or carrying. In other words, the fetus is in fact considered a full-fledged offspring, but it is does not impart impurity because it is nullified by the rest of the congealed mass.

קלאוד על הדף:

The exemption implies that the mass counts as a real birth, since only a real birth ‘opens the womb’. But a dead fetus is a carcass and should impart impurity through touching and carrying. Rabbi Yochanan answers that both statements are true at once: the fetus is a genuine offspring for the firstborn law, but for impurity it is swallowed up by the larger mass of blood around it.

Key Terms:

• לְמֵימְרָא = that is to say — drawing an implication from a ruling
• מַגָּע וּמַשָּׂא = contact and carrying — two modes by which a carcass transmits impurity
• בִּיטּוּל בְּרוֹב = nullification in a majority — a minority substance loses its identity within a larger mixture

Segment 3

TYPE: גמרא

Rabbi Yochanan is consistent: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and Rabbi Shimon share one principle

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב — הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.

English Translation:

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his line of reasoning in this regard, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and Rabbi Shimon both said the same thing, i.e., they both issued rulings based on the same principle. The relevant statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is that which we said previously, i.e., that the expelled mass does not impart ritual impurity because the fetus is nullified by the majority.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara shows that Rabbi Yochanan’s explanation is not invented for this mishna alone. Elsewhere he identifies a shared principle behind two tannaim, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s ruling in our mishna is the first of them. The second, from Rabbi Shimon, is quoted next.

Key Terms:

• אַזְדָּא לְטַעְמֵיהּ = follows his own line of reasoning — he is consistent with a position stated elsewhere
• אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד = they said one thing — they rule on the same underlying principle

Segment 4

TYPE: משנה

The afterbirth in a house: the first tanna rules it impure, Rabbi Shimon says the fetus disintegrated

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַאי הִיא? דִּתְנַן: הַשִּׁלְיָא בַּבַּיִת — הַבַּיִת טָמֵא. לֹא שֶׁהַשִּׁלְיָא וָלָד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין שִׁלְיָא בְּלֹא וָלָד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: וָלָד נִימּוֹק עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא.

English Translation:

And what is the statement of Rabbi Shimon to which Rabbi Yoḥanan was referring? It is as we learned in a mishna (Nidda 18a): If a woman miscarried and the afterbirth is in the house, the house is impure. The reason is not that the afterbirth itself has the status of an offspring, but that there is no afterbirth without an offspring within it, even if it is undetected. Rabbi Shimon says: The offspring disintegrated before it emerged with the afterbirth. Consequently, the house is not rendered impure, because the disintegrated fetus is nullified by the majority.

קלאוד על הדף:

The mishna in Nidda concerns a woman’s miscarriage, where a dead fetus is a human corpse and makes the whole house impure. The first tanna assumes there is always a fetus inside an afterbirth, so the house is impure. Rabbi Shimon holds that the fetus dissolved before it emerged and is lost in the bulk of the afterbirth, which is exactly the nullification Rabbi Yochanan found in Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s ruling.

Key Terms:

• שִׁלְיָא = afterbirth — the placental sac
• הַבַּיִת טָמֵא = the house is impure — through corpse impurity under a roof (tumat ohel)
• נִימּוֹק = disintegrated, dissolved

Segment 5

TYPE: משנה ושאלה

Miscarried fetuses do not impart impurity at the womb’s opening until the head is the size of a skein

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תְּנַן הָתָם: אֵין לִנְפָלִים פְּתִיחַת הַקֶּבֶר, עַד שֶׁיַּעֲגִילוּ רֹאשׁ כְּפִיקָּה. מַאי כְּפִיקָּה? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כְּפִיקָּה שֶׁל צֶמֶר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ חִיָּיא בַּר רַב לְרַב הוּנָא: רַבִּי, פָּרֵישׁ שֶׁל שְׁתִי אוֹ שֶׁל עֵרֶב?

English Translation:

§ The Gemara continues discussing the ritual impurity imparted by a fetus. We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Oholot 7:4): If a fetus dies in its mother’s womb, it imparts ritual impurity from when the womb opens. Yet deceased fetuses do not impart ritual impurity in this manner even during the opening of the womb, until the head of the fetus is round like the size of a skein [pika] of yarn. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Like a skein? Rav Huna said: It means like a skein of woolen yarn. Ḥiyya bar Rav said to Rav Huna: My teacher, explain your statement: Were you referring to a skein of warp threads or a skein of the thicker woof threads?

קלאוד על הדף:

The sugya turns to another rule about when a fetus counts for impurity. When a fetus dies in the womb, the womb is treated like a closed grave, and its opening releases corpse impurity. The mishna in Oholot limits this to a fetus whose head has grown round to the size of a ‘pika’, a skein. Rav Huna explains it as a skein of wool, and Chiyya bar Rav presses him on which kind, since warp and woof skeins differ in size.

Key Terms:

• נְפָלִים = miscarried or non-viable fetuses
• פְּתִיחַת הַקֶּבֶר = opening of the grave — the womb’s opening, at which a dead fetus inside imparts impurity
• פִּיקָּה = skein, ball of thread
• שְׁתִי וָעֵרֶב = warp and woof — the lengthwise and crosswise threads of a weave; woof thread is thicker

Segment 6

TYPE: ברייתא

Rabbi Meir says warp, Rabbi Yehuda says woof, Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok says from when tefifiyot are seen

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תַּנְיָא: פִּיקָּה שֶׁל שְׁתִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שֶׁל עֵרֶב. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁיֵּרָאוּ טְפִיפִיּוֹת. מַאי טְפִיפִיּוֹת? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק: כָּךְ הָיוּ מְפָרְשִׁין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם: כִּפְרֵידָה שֶׁכּוֹרַעַת לְהַטִּיל מֵימֶיהָ, וְנִרְאֵית פִּיקָּה מִתּוֹךְ פִּיקָּה.

English Translation:

Rav Huna said to him: It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Oholot 8:5): Deceased fetuses do not impart ritual impurity until the head of the fetus is the size of a skein of warp threads; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The head must be the size of a skein of woof threads. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: The fetus imparts ritual impurity from the time that tefifiyot are seen near the opening of the womb. The Gemara asks: What are tefifiyot? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok: This is how they would explain it in Jerusalem: Tefifiyot are like the folds of skin that form when a mule bends down to urinate, and the area near the womb appears as a skein emerging from within a skein.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Huna answers with a baraita in which tannaim already disagree about this. Rabbi Meir requires the smaller warp skein and Rabbi Yehuda the thicker woof skein. Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok sets a different marker altogether: a visible folding at the opening of the womb, which the Jerusalem scholars compared to the folds on a mule bending to urinate, like one skein appearing inside another.

Key Terms:

• טְפִיפִיּוֹת = tefifiyot — folds or ring-like formations visible at the opening of the womb
• פְּרֵידָה = a female mule
• כָּךְ הָיוּ מְפָרְשִׁין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם = so they would explain it in Jerusalem

Segment 7

TYPE: גמרא

Rav Huna heard of two skeins, Rabbi Yochanan of three; Ravin explains: warp for a woman, woof for an animal

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: שָׁמַעְתִּי שְׁתֵּי פִּיקוֹת, אַחַת שֶׁל שְׁתִי וְאַחַת שֶׁל עֵרֶב, וְאֵין לִי לְפָרֵשׁ. כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שָׁלֹשׁ פִּיקוֹת שָׁמַעְתִּי, אַחַת שֶׁל שְׁתִי וְאַחַת שֶׁל עֵרֶב וְאַחַת שֶׁל פִּיקָּה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁל סַקָּאִין, וְאֵין לִי לְפָרֵשׁ. כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין פֵּירְשַׁהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁל אִשָּׁה כְּשֶׁל שְׁתִי, שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה כְּשֶׁל עֵרֶב.

English Translation:

Rav Huna says: I heard two different halakhot with regard to skeins: One involves a skein of warp threads and the other one involves a skein of woof threads, and I do not have the knowledge to explain to which matter these halakhot refer. When Rav Dimi came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to skeins, I heard three different halakhot: One involves a skein of warp threads, and one a skein of woof threads, and one a large skein used by sack makers, and I do not have the knowledge to explain to which matter these halakhot refer. When Ravin came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael, he explained this in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: To impart ritual impurity, the head of a fetus in the womb of a woman must be the size of a skein of warp threads, and the head of an animal fetus must be the size of a skein of woof threads.

קלאוד על הדף:

Two great teachers admit that they received a tradition of measures without knowing what each applied to. Rav Huna knew of two skeins, and Rabbi Yochanan, as reported by Rav Dimi, knew of three. Ravin then brings Rabbi Yochanan’s explanation: the warp skein is the measure for a human fetus and the woof skein for an animal fetus. This resolves the dispute in the baraita by assigning each measure to a different case rather than choosing between them.

Key Terms:

• וְאֵין לִי לְפָרֵשׁ = and I cannot explain — I received the tradition without its application
• כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי / רָבִין = when Rav Dimi / Ravin came — the scholars who brought teachings from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel
• סַקָּאִין = sack makers

Segment 8

TYPE: ברייתא

The third skein: the size of a clod of earth from a beit haperas or from gentile lands

Hebrew/Aramaic:

פִּיקָּה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁל סַקָּאִין, כְּדִתְנַן: גּוּשׁ הַבָּא מִבֵּית הַפְּרָס, מֵאֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים — שִׁיעוּרוֹ כְּפִיקָּה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁל סַקָּאִין, שֶׁהוּא כְּחוֹתַם הַמַּרְצוּפִין, וְיֶשְׁנוֹ בְּצַד הָעֶלְיוֹן שֶׁל מְגוּפַת הֶחָבִית הַלַּחְמִית.

English Translation:

As for the halakha involving a large skein used by sack makers, it is as we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Kelim Bava Metzia 7:1): For it to impart ritual impurity, a clod of earth that comes from an area in which uncertainty exists concerning the location of a grave or a corpse [beit haperas], or from the land of the gentile nations, must be of the measure of a large skein used by sack makers, the size of which is like the seal of large sacks [martzofin]. And an item of this size is also found on the top side of the seal of a Bethlehem jug.

קלאוד על הדף:

The large sack makers’ skein belongs to a different law entirely. Earth from a beit haperas, where a grave was plowed up and bone fragments may be scattered, or from outside Eretz Yisrael, is impure by rabbinic decree. A clod imparts that impurity only if it reaches the size of the large skein, which the baraita identifies with the seal of large sacks and the top of a Bethlehem jug’s stopper.

Key Terms:

• בֵּית הַפְּרָס = beit haperas — a field in which a grave was plowed, so that bones may be scattered in its soil
• אֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים = the land of the nations — land outside Eretz Yisrael, whose earth the Sages declared impure
• מַרְצוּפִין = large sacks
• מְגוּפָה = stopper or seal of a jug

Segment 9

TYPE: מימרא

Brine bought from an am ha’aretz is purified by touching it to the water of a mikveh

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה: הַלּוֹקֵחַ צִיר מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ — מַשִּׁיקוֹ בְּמַיִם, וְטָהוֹר.

English Translation:

§ Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: One who purchases fish brine from one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity [am ha’aretz], who must purify it due to the concern that it was rendered impure while in the seller’s possession, brings it into contact with the water of a ritual bath so that the water touches the brine, and it is thereby rendered pure.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara now brings a second application of nullification. An am ha’aretz is not careful about purity, so his fish brine is presumed impure. Reish Lakish, in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, rules that the buyer only needs to bring it into contact with mikveh water, a procedure (hashaka) that normally purifies only water.

Key Terms:

• עַם הָאָרֶץ = am ha’aretz — one not trusted to observe the laws of ritual purity
• צִיר = brine — the liquid that seeps from salted fish
• מַשִּׁיקוֹ = he brings it into contact — hashaka, touching a liquid to the water of a mikveh to purify it

Segment 10

TYPE: הסבר

Either way the brine is pure: water purified by contact, or a minority of water nullified in pure brine

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ, אִי מַיָּא רוּבָּא נִינְהוּ — כֵּיוָן דְּעָבֵיד לְהוּ הַשָּׁקָה טָהֲרִי לְהוּ, וְאִי רוּבָּא צִיר נִינְהוּ — צִיר לָא בַּר קַבּוֹלֵי טוּמְאָה הוּא. מַאי אִיכָּא — מִשּׁוּם הָנָךְ מִיעוּטָא דְּמַיָּא, הָנָךְ בָּטְלוּ לְהוּ בְּרוּבָּא.

English Translation:

Reish Lakish explains: The brine is pure whichever way you look at it: If water is the majority of the brine mixture, once he brought the brine into contact with the ritual bath, the water in the brine mixture became pure and the impurity of the brine is nullified by the majority of pure water. And if the majority is the brine excreted by the fish itself it is also pure, as brine alone is not susceptible to ritual impurity. Consequently, what impurity is there? Any impurity is due only to that minority of water in the mixture, and that water is nullified by the majority of brine.

קלאוד על הדף:

Hashaka works on water but not on brine, so Reish Lakish explains why it helps here. An am ha’aretz may have added water to the brine. If water is the majority, the contact purifies that water and the brine within it is nullified. If brine is the majority, the brine itself cannot become impure, and the impure minority of water is nullified in it. The case depends on the same principle as the congealed mass: impurity lost in a majority.

Key Terms:

• מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ = whichever way you look at it — an argument that covers every possibility
• הַשָּׁקָה = hashaka — contact with mikveh water
• לָא בַּר קַבּוֹלֵי טוּמְאָה = not capable of receiving impurity

Segment 11

TYPE: מימרא, קושיא וראיה

Rabbi Yirmeya: only for dipping bread, not cooking, since the water ‘revives’; Abaye objects, Rav Dimi cites a mishna

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לִטְבּוֹל בָּהֶן פִּיתּוֹ, אֲבָל לִקְדֵירָה — לֹא, מָצָא מִין אֶת מִינוֹ וְנֵיעוֹר. יָתֵיב רַב דִּימִי וְקָאָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְכִי טוּמְאָה שֶׁבָּטְלָה חָזְרָה וְנֵיעוֹרָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְאַתְּ לָא תִּסְבְּרַהּ? וְהָתְנַן: סְאָה תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה

English Translation:

Rabbi Yirmeya says: The Sages taught that one should use that method of purification only if he wishes to dip his bread in the brine. But for cooking in a pot with other water this method is not effective, as the liquid of the type that was nullified, i.e., the water in the brine, found its own type, the water in the pot, and is revived in its impure state, as the water which was previously only a minority of the mixture is now the majority. Rav Dimi was sitting and saying this halakha. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: But does nullified impurity return and revive in its impure state? Rav Dimi said to him: And you, do you not hold that this is the halakha? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Teruma 5:2): With regard to a se’aof impure teruma that fell

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Yirmeya limits the ruling. If the brine is cooked in a pot with more water, the nullified water meets its own kind and the impure portion ‘wakes up’ again. Abaye asks whether nullified impurity can ever return. Rav Dimi answers by quoting a mishna about impure teruma that fell into non-sacred produce, which the next amud continues.

Key Terms:

• מָצָא מִין אֶת מִינוֹ וְנֵיעוֹר = a kind found its own kind and revived — a nullified substance regains its identity when joined by more of its own type
• לִטְבּוֹל בָּהֶן פִּיתּוֹ = to dip his bread in it
• תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה = impure teruma — the kohen’s portion that has become impure and may not be eaten

Amud Bet (22b)

Segment 1

TYPE: משנה

Rabbi Eliezer: the se’ah removed must rot as impure teruma, since ‘the se’ah that fell is the one that came up’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לְמֵאָה חוּלִּין טְהוֹרִין, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: תֵּירוֹם וְתֵרָקֵב, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: הִיא סְאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה הִיא סְאָה שֶׁעָלְתָה.

English Translation:

into one hundred se’a of pure, non-sacred produce, Rabbi Eliezer says: Let one se’a be lifted from the mixture and left to rot as impure teruma, as I say: The se’a that fell is the se’a that arose?

קלאוד על הדף:

This completes the mishna Rav Dimi began quoting. When one se’ah of teruma falls into a hundred of non-sacred produce, one se’ah is normally removed and given to a kohen. Here the teruma that fell was impure. Rabbi Eliezer treats the removed se’ah as if it were the very one that fell, so it must be left to rot like impure teruma.

Key Terms:

• סְאָה = se’ah — a measure of volume
• חוּלִּין = non-sacred produce
• תֵּירוֹם וְתֵרָקֵב = let it be lifted and rot — removed and destroyed, as impure teruma may not be eaten
• עוֹלָה בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה = nullified in one hundred and one — teruma lost in a hundred parts of chullin after one part is removed

Segment 2

TYPE: משנה

The Rabbis: it is nullified, but it must be kept away from water or divided into portions smaller than an egg-bulk

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: תַּעֲלֶה, וְתֵיאָכֵל נִיקּוּדִים, אוֹ קְלָיוֹת, אוֹ תִּילּוֹשׁ בְּמֵי פֵירוֹת, אוֹ תִּתְחַלֵּק לְעִיסּוֹת, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד כְּבֵיצָה.

English Translation:

And the Rabbis say: Let the se’a of teruma arise and be nullified by the one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce, and then all one hundred and one se’a will be considered non-sacred. Nevertheless, the mixture may not be allowed to come in contact with water, so that it does not become susceptible to ritual impurity, and therefore it must be eaten dry or roasted. Or alternatively, it may be kneaded with fruit juice, which does not render a substance susceptible to impurity. Or alternatively, if one wants to knead it with water, it may divided into small batches, provided that there is not an egg-bulk of teruma in a single batch, as an egg-bulk is the minimum volume needed for food to be susceptible to contracting impurity.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Rabbis disagree and allow the mixture to be eaten, yet they still restrict it. It must be eaten dry or roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, which does not make food susceptible to impurity, or split into batches with less than an egg-bulk in each. These precautions are Rav Dimi’s proof: even after nullification the Rabbis worry that the impurity could take hold again once the food becomes susceptible.

Key Terms:

• נִיקּוּדִים = dry crumbled bread or biscuits
• קְלָיוֹת = roasted grain
• מֵי פֵירוֹת = fruit juices — liquids that do not make food susceptible to impurity
• כְּבֵיצָה = an egg-bulk — the minimum quantity of food that can contract impurity

Segment 3

TYPE: ברייתא

A baraita begins to explain to which produce these restrictions apply

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: אוֹתָן חוּלִּין

English Translation:

And it is taught in that regard: Concerning those one hundred se’a of non-sacred produce,

קלאוד על הדף:

A baraita on this mishna begins to specify which part of the mixture the Rabbis’ restrictions refer to, the hundred se’ah of non-sacred produce. The sentence breaks off here and continues on 23a. The details will determine whether the mishna really proves that nullified impurity can revive, as Rav Dimi claims.

Key Terms:

• וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ = and it is taught concerning it — a baraita commenting on the mishna just cited
• אוֹתָן חוּלִּין = those non-sacred produce — the hundred se’ah into which the teruma fell

📝 Summary

Overview

Bechorot 22 follows the principle of nullification (ביטול ברוב) from the firstborn law into the laws of impurity. It opens by answering the question left open at the end of 21b. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s mishna requires a large animal’s expelled mass of congealed blood to be buried, yet Rabbi Chiyya taught that the mass imparts no impurity. The answer is that burial publicizes that the mother is now exempt from the firstborn law. This implies the mass is a real offspring, so the Gemara asks why it does not impart impurity. Rabbi Yochanan answers that the fetus is nullified in the majority of the mass, and he finds the same principle in Rabbi Shimon’s view of the afterbirth in Nidda. A digression follows on the size a dead fetus must reach before it imparts impurity at the opening of the womb. Several traditions about skeins (פיקות) of warp, woof and sack makers’ yarn are sorted out, the last of them belonging to the clod of earth from a beit haperas. The Gemara then turns to a second case of nullification: brine bought from an am ha’aretz, which Reish Lakish purifies by contact with mikveh water. Rabbi Yirmeya limits that ruling with the idea that nullified water can “revive” (ניעור) when it meets its own kind. Abaye challenges this, and Rav Dimi answers from the mishna of a se’ah of impure teruma that fell into a hundred se’ah of non-sacred produce. A baraita on that mishna begins as the daf ends.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• Why bury the mass: the burial is not about the mass itself, which imparts no impurity. It is done “כדי לפרסמה שנפטרה מן הבכורה,” to publicize that the mother has given birth, so that no one treats her next male as a firstborn.
• A real offspring that is not impure: the exemption implies the mass is a full offspring, so why is it not impure through contact and carrying? Rabbi Yochanan answers “משום ביטול ברוב נגעו בה”: the fetus counts as a birth, but for impurity it is nullified in the larger mass of blood around it.
• Rabbi Yochanan is consistent: he says Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and Rabbi Shimon “said one thing.” Rabbi Shimon’s statement is from the mishna in Nidda. The first tanna rules that a house holding a miscarried afterbirth is impure, since there is no afterbirth without an offspring. Rabbi Shimon says the offspring disintegrated (נימוק) before it emerged, so it is nullified in the afterbirth.
• “פתיחת הקבר”: the mishna in Oholot rules that a fetus dead in the womb imparts impurity at the womb’s opening only once its head is round like a skein (פיקה). Rav Huna says this means a skein of wool. Chiyya bar Rav asks whether he means a skein of warp or of woof.
• The baraita of skeins: Rabbi Meir says warp, and Rabbi Yehuda says woof. Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok says it is from when tefifiyot are seen. Rav Yehuda, citing Shmuel, gives the Jerusalem explanation: folds like those of a mule bending to urinate, “a skein within a skein.”
• Traditions without their application: Rav Huna heard of two skeins, warp and woof, and could not explain them. Rav Dimi reports that Rabbi Yochanan heard of three, adding the large skein of the sack makers, and could not explain them either. Ravin brings Rabbi Yochanan’s explanation: the warp skein is the measure for a woman’s fetus and the woof skein for an animal’s.
• The sack makers’ skein: it is the measure of a clod of earth from a beit haperas or from the lands of the nations, which imparts impurity only at that size. The baraita compares it to the seal of large sacks and to the top of the stopper of a Bethlehem jug.
• Brine from an am ha’aretz: Reish Lakish, in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, rules that the buyer touches it to mikveh water (משיקו) and it is pure. Either way the result is the same. If water is the majority, the contact purifies it and the brine is nullified. If brine is the majority, brine cannot become impure, and the impure minority of water is nullified in it.
• Rabbi Yirmeya’s limit: this works only for dipping bread. In a pot with more water, “מצא מין את מינו וניעור”: the nullified water meets its own kind and revives. Abaye asks Rav Dimi whether nullified impurity can ever revive, and Rav Dimi answers from the mishna in Teruma, which runs onto 22b.

Amud Bet Highlights

• Rabbi Eliezer on the fallen se’ah: when a se’ah of impure teruma falls into a hundred se’ah of pure non-sacred produce, a se’ah is removed and left to rot as impure teruma. His reason is “היא סאה שנפלה היא סאה שעלתה,” that the se’ah removed is treated as the very se’ah that fell in.
• The Rabbis: the teruma is nullified (“תעלה”), but the mixture is still restricted. It must be eaten dry or roasted, or kneaded with fruit juice, which does not make food susceptible to impurity. Otherwise it must be divided into batches with less than an egg-bulk (כביצה) in any one place.
• Rav Dimi’s point: the Rabbis’ precautions seem to show that even after nullification the impurity can take hold again once the food becomes susceptible. That would support Rabbi Yirmeya.
• The baraita: “ותני עלה: אותן חולין” begins to specify which produce the restrictions concern. It breaks off and continues on 23a, where the force of Rav Dimi’s proof will be tested.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

Burial of the congealed mass is a public notice about the mother, not a sign of impurity in the mass. Rabbi Yochanan’s principle holds both ways: the fetus is a real offspring for the firstborn law but is nullified for impurity, as Rabbi Shimon holds about the afterbirth. Ravin’s report settles the skein traditions. The warp measure applies to a human fetus and the woof measure to an animal’s, and the sack makers’ skein is the measure for a clod of earth from a beit haperas or foreign land. Reish Lakish’s ruling on brine stands, with Rabbi Yirmeya’s limit to dipping bread. Abaye’s question, whether nullified impurity can revive, is still open at the end of the daf. Rav Dimi’s proof from the Rabbis’ precautions depends on the baraita that continues on 23a.

Key Figures

Tannaim: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok, Rabbi Eliezer, the Rabbis, Rabbi Chiyya

Amoraim: Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, Rabbi Yochanan, Rav Huna, Chiyya bar Rav, Rav Yehuda, Shmuel, Rav Dimi, Ravin, Reish Lakish, Rabbi Yirmeya, Abaye

One-Line Takeaway

A thing can count fully for one law and vanish into the majority for another, and the open question is whether what has vanished can return when it meets its own kind.

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Today’s daf is all about one big idea: when a little bit of something gets lost inside a lot of something else, does it still count? We start with a cow that gave birth to a strange blob, move on to tiny unborn babies and how big they have to be, then visit a fish-sauce shop, and end with a pile of wheat that had a bit of the kohen’s food spilled into it. And the question at the end is a great one: can something that disappeared ever “wake up” again?

Quick Recap: The Mysterious Blob 🩸

At the end of daf 21, a new mishna told us about a large animal (like a cow) that gave birth to a חררת דם (charrat dam), a “clump of thick, dried blood” instead of a normal calf.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said two things:

• The blob must be buried, because maybe a tiny boy calf was hidden inside, and a firstborn boy calf is holy.
• The cow is now exempt from the firstborn rule. Her next baby won’t be a בכור (bechor, “firstborn”), because she already “opened her womb” with this blob.

Then Rabbi Chiyya added: this blob gives no impurity at all, not by touching it and not by carrying it. (A dead animal, called a נבלה, nevela, normally makes people tamei, “ritually impure,” when they touch or carry it.)

So the Gemara asked: “If it doesn’t even act like a dead animal, why bury it?” And the page stopped there!

The Simple Idea 💡: We pick up with a puzzle: why bury a blob that doesn’t even make anyone impure?

Why Bury It? So Everyone Knows! 📣

Here’s the answer: we bury it to let everyone know (לפרסמה, lefarsemah, “to publicize it”) that this cow already had her first baby.

The burial isn’t really about the blob. It’s about the mom! If people see the burial, they’ll remember: “Oh right, that cow already gave birth.” Then next time she has a boy calf, nobody will mistakenly hand it to the kohen as a firstborn, or treat it as holy when it isn’t.

Think of it like… a party for a kid losing his first tooth. The tooth itself isn’t important anymore. The party is so everyone knows “His first tooth is gone, so the next one won’t be his first!”

The Simple Idea 💡: The burial is a public announcement that the mother cow has already had her first birth.

Real Baby or Not? Both! 🤔

But wait! 🤔 The Gemara spots a problem. If the blob counts as a real birth (enough to make the cow’s next baby not a firstborn), then it should be a real dead baby animal too. And a dead baby animal should make people impure!

So which is it? Is it a real baby or isn’t it?

Rabbi Yochanan says: it’s both! For the firstborn rule, it really is a baby. But for impurity, the tiny baby inside is lost in the much bigger blob of blood around it. This idea is called ביטול ברוב (bittul berov, “being cancelled out by the majority”). When a little bit of something gets mixed into a lot of something else, the little bit stops “counting” on its own.

Think of it like… one drop of chocolate milk in a big glass of plain milk. Is there chocolate in there? Yes! But nobody would call it a glass of chocolate milk. The plain milk “wins.”

The Simple Idea 💡: The tiny baby is real enough to count as the cow’s first birth, but it’s too small inside all that blood to make anyone impure.

Rabbi Yochanan Is Consistent ✅

The Gemara likes to check: does Rabbi Yochanan say this kind of thing elsewhere too, or did he just make it up for this case? Good news: he’s consistent (אזדא לטעמיה, azda leta’amei, “he follows his own reasoning”).

Rabbi Yochanan once said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and Rabbi Shimon “said the same thing” (they both use the same rule). Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s rule is the blob we just saw. What’s Rabbi Shimon’s?

It’s from a different mishna (in Masechet Nidda), about a woman who lost a baby before it was born. Out came only the שליא (shilya, “afterbirth,” the sac the baby grows in).

(A human body that died makes everything under the same roof impure. That’s why the house matters!)

So Rabbi Shimon uses the same trick as Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: a tiny baby gets lost in the bigger stuff around it.

Think of it like… a sugar cube dropped into hot tea. It was there, but now it’s dissolved, and you can’t pick it out anymore.

The Simple Idea 💡: Two different teachers, in two different cases, both say a tiny baby can get “lost” in what surrounds it.

How Big Is Big Enough? The Yarn Ball 🧶

Now the Gemara talks about another rule for unborn babies who died.

If a baby dies inside its mother before it’s born, the mother’s body is treated like a closed grave (קבר, kever). When the womb opens, it’s like opening a grave, and impurity comes out. This is called פתיחת הקבר (petichat hakever, “opening of the grave”).

But a mishna (in Masechet Oholot) says this only happens once the baby’s head is round and as big as a פיקה (pika, a “ball of yarn”).

“A ball of what yarn?” asks the Gemara. Rav Huna says: wool yarn.

Then his student, Chiyya bar Rav, asks a sharp question: “Rebbi, which kind?” When you weave cloth, there are two kinds of threads:

• שתי (sheti, “warp”): the long threads that go up and down. They’re thinner, so the ball is smaller.
• ערב (erev, “woof”): the threads that go side to side. They’re thicker, so the ball is bigger.

Think of it like… asking “How big is a ball?” and someone says “a ball!” OK, but a ping-pong ball or a tennis ball? It makes a difference!

The Simple Idea 💡: A dead unborn baby only makes impurity once its head is the size of a ball of yarn, and the question is which yarn ball.

Three Teachers, Three Sizes 📏

Rav Huna answers with a baraita (a teaching from the time of the Mishna that isn’t in the Mishna itself). Turns out the tannaim already argued about this!

What are tefifiyot? Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel, in the name of Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok: “This is how they explained it in Jerusalem!” It looks like the folds of skin on a פרידה (pereida, a “female mule”) when she crouches down, as if one ball of yarn is showing from inside another.

Think of it like… a rose opening up. You can see one ring of petals inside another ring inside another.

The Simple Idea 💡: The tannaim argue about the exact size, and one of them uses a different sign altogether: the folds you can see at the opening.

”I Heard It, But I Don’t Know What It Means!” 🙋

Here’s something really nice. Two of the greatest teachers admit they don’t know something!

• Rav Huna says: “I heard about two yarn balls, warp and woof, and I don’t know what they’re for.”
• When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yochanan said: “I heard about three yarn balls, warp, woof, and a giant yarn ball used by סקאין (saka’in, “sack makers”), and I don’t know what they’re for.”

They remembered the tradition perfectly, even though they didn’t understand it. Then Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael and brought Rabbi Yochanan’s explanation:

So Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda don’t really have to be fighting. Each size belongs to a different case!

Think of it like… finding two keys in Grandpa’s drawer with no labels. You keep them safe, even though you don’t know which doors they open. Then one day someone tells you: “The small one is for the shed, the big one is for the garage!”

The Simple Idea 💡: The Sages carefully kept traditions they didn’t fully understand, and later the meaning arrived: the small yarn ball is for people, the bigger one for animals.

The Giant Yarn Ball: Dirt From Far Away 🌍

What about the giant sack makers’ yarn ball? It’s from a totally different law, about dirt!

Some dirt is impure because the Sages said so:

• Dirt from a בית הפרס (beit haperas): a field where someone plowed over a grave, so tiny bits of bone might be scattered in the soil.
• Dirt from ארץ העמים (eretz ha’amim, “the land of the nations”): land outside Eretz Yisrael.

But a clump of that dirt only makes things impure if it’s as big as the giant sack makers’ yarn ball. How big is that? The baraita says: as big as the seal on a big sack, or the top of the stopper on a jug from Bethlehem (בית לחם, Beit Lechem).

Think of it like… a rule that says “You only need to sweep up a crumb if it’s bigger than a bottle cap.” Tiny bits don’t count; a real clump does.

The Simple Idea 💡: The giant yarn ball measures how big a clump of impure dirt has to be to matter.

The Fish-Sauce Shop 🐟

Now back to our main idea: little bits getting lost in a lot.

Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: if you buy ציר (tzir, “fish brine,” the salty juice that drips out of salted fish) from an עם הארץ (am ha’aretz), it’s easy to make it pure.

(An am ha’aretz is someone who isn’t careful about purity rules, so we assume his stuff might be impure.)

What do you do? You just touch the brine to the water of a mikveh (a special pool for purifying). This is called השקה (hashaka, “touching”). And it’s pure!

But wait! 🤔 Hashaka only works on water, not on brine. So how does it help here?

Reish Lakish explains with ממה נפשך (mima nafshach, “whichever way you look at it”). Maybe the am ha’aretz added water to his brine. So:

Either way: pure!

Think of it like… a team that wins whether it’s playing at home or away. You don’t need to know where the game is. You win either way!

The Simple Idea 💡: Whether the jar is mostly water or mostly brine, the impure part is the small part, and it gets cancelled out.

Can Lost Stuff “Wake Up”? 😴➡️😳

Rabbi Yirmeya adds an important limit: this only works if you’re going to dip your bread in the brine. But if you pour it into a pot full of water for cooking, it doesn’t work!

Why? Because of מצא מין את מינו וניעור (matza min et mino vena’or, “a kind found its own kind and woke up”). The impure water was hiding inside the brine. But in the pot, it meets lots more water, its own kind! Now water is the majority again, and the impurity comes back to life.

Think of it like… one kid on the blue team who got mixed into a crowd of red-team kids, so nobody noticed him. But then the whole blue team walks in. He joins them, and suddenly the blue team is the biggest group in the room!

Rav Dimi was sitting and teaching this rule. Abaye asked him: “Can something that was cancelled out really wake up again?”

Rav Dimi answered: “Don’t you think so? Didn’t we learn a mishna…” and he starts to quote it.

The Simple Idea 💡: Rabbi Yirmeya says cancelled-out impurity can come back when it meets more of its own kind, and Abaye wants to know if that’s really true.

The Kohen’s Wheat in the Big Pile 🌾

Here’s the mishna Rav Dimi quotes. First, some background:

תרומה (teruma) is the special portion of food that goes to the kohen. Normally, if one measure (a סאה, se’ah) of teruma falls into a hundred se’ah of regular food (חולין, chullin), you take one se’ah out, give it to the kohen, and everything else becomes regular food again.

But in this mishna, the teruma that fell in was impure! Impure teruma can’t be eaten by anyone, not even a kohen.

Why all those careful rules? Here’s a quick fact: food can only catch impurity after it gets wet with water (or a few other liquids, but not fruit juice). And food smaller than a כביצה (kebeitza, “egg-size”) can’t pass on impurity. So the Rabbis keep the mixture from getting wet, or keep the pieces too small to matter.

And that’s Rav Dimi’s proof! Why would the Rabbis bother with all these rules if the impurity was really gone forever? It must be that it can wake up again if the food gets wet!

Think of it like… a sleeping dog. The Rabbis say: “It’s asleep, so you can walk by. But tiptoe! Don’t splash water on it!”

The Simple Idea 💡: The Rabbis let us eat the mixture, but only carefully, which shows they worried the hidden impurity could wake up.

The Cliffhanger! ⏸️

Then the Gemara starts a baraita about this mishna: “And it was taught about it: those regular foods…”

…and the page ends! 🎬

The baraita is going to tell us which part of the pile the Rabbis’ careful rules are talking about. And that will help us find out whether Rav Dimi’s proof really works. We’ll find out on daf 23!

The Simple Idea 💡: The question “can cancelled-out impurity wake up?” is still open, and the next daf will continue it.

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• The blob is buried to announce that the cow already had her first birth, so her next baby isn’t a firstborn.
• Rabbi Yochanan: the tiny baby in the blob is real for the firstborn rule, but it’s lost in the majority (bittul berov) of blood, so it makes no one impure.
• Rabbi Shimon uses the same idea: a tiny baby dissolved in the afterbirth doesn’t make the house impure.
• Yarn balls: a dead unborn baby makes impurity once its head is as big as a ball of yarn. Rabbi Meir says warp, Rabbi Yehuda says woof, and Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok looks for folds.
• “I don’t know what it means!”: Rav Huna and Rabbi Yochanan kept traditions they didn’t understand. Ravin explained: warp for a human baby, woof for an animal, and the giant sack makers’ ball for a clump of impure dirt from a plowed grave field or from outside Eretz Yisrael.
• Fish brine from an am ha’aretz becomes pure by touching a mikveh, whichever way you look at it.
• Rabbi Yirmeya: only for dipping bread. In a pot of water, the hidden water meets its own kind and wakes up.
• Abaye asks: can cancelled impurity really wake up? Rav Dimi points to the impure teruma in a hundred se’ah: Rabbi Eliezer says let one se’ah rot, and the Rabbis let it be eaten dry, roasted, with fruit juice, or in small batches. The baraita explaining it continues on daf 23!

⚖️ Halacha

The Congealed Mass: Buried to Publicize the Exemption

Source in Daf: 22a, Segment 1 (the answer to the question that closed 21b: the mass is buried “כדי לפרסמה שנפטרה מן הבכורה,” to publicize that the mother is exempt from the firstborn law)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 4:11

Hebrew:

בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה שֶׁהִפִּילָה חֲרָרַת דָּם הֲרֵי זוֹ נִפְטְרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה שֶׁחֶזְקָתָהּ שֶׁהַוָּלָד בְּתוֹכָהּ וְרָבָה עָלָיו הַדָּם וְהִפְסִידוֹ וּבִטְּלוֹ. וְקוֹבְרִין חֲרָרָה זוֹ כְּמוֹ נֵפֶל מְבַכֶּרֶת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין חֲרָרָה זוֹ קְדוֹשָׁה. וְלָמָּה קוֹבְרִין אוֹתָהּ כְּדֵי לְפַרְסֵם הַדָּבָר שֶׁנִּפְטְרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה:

English:

When a large animal discharges a flow of blood, the future offspring of this animal is exempt from the requirements of the firstborn, for we assume that there was an offspring in it, but there was much more blood and it lost its form and its existence was nullified. We must bury the flow of blood like a stillborn firstborn animal, even though this flow of blood has no consecrated quality. Why is it buried? In order to publicize the matter that the offspring of this animal was exempted from the requirements of the firstborn.

Connection: The Rambam rules like Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov of the mishna on 21b and adopts both halves of today’s Gemara. His reason for the exemption, “שחזקתה שהולד בתוכה ורבה עליו הדם… ובטלו,” is Rabbi Yochanan’s analysis in Segment 2: the mass contains a real offspring, so the womb has been opened, but that offspring is lost in the blood around it. His reason for burial is the Gemara’s answer in Segment 1 almost word for word, “כדי לפרסם הדבר שנפטרה מן הבכורה.” He also makes explicit what the Gemara’s question assumed: the mass itself is not holy (“אין חררה זו קדושה”). Burial here is a public notice, not a sign of sanctity.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 315:7

Hebrew:

בהמה דקה שטנפה דהיינו שנימוח העובר ויצא המיחוי פטורה מהבכורה וצריך להראותו לרועה חכם שיראה אם הוא מיחוי ולד ובהמה גסה שהפילה שליא פטורה מהבכורה והשליא עצמה אין בה קדושה ומותר להאכילה לכלבים שפעה חררת דם פטורה מהבכורה והחררה תקבר לפרסמה שהיא פטורה מהבכורה:

English (our rendering; Sefaria has no English for this se’if):

A small animal that discharged a decomposed mass, meaning that the fetus dissolved and the dissolved matter came out, is exempt from the firstborn law, and it must be shown to an expert shepherd to see whether it is the dissolved matter of an offspring. And a large animal that miscarried an afterbirth is exempt from the firstborn law, and the afterbirth itself has no sanctity and may be fed to dogs. If it discharged a mass of blood, it is exempt from the firstborn law, and the mass is buried to publicize that it is exempt from the firstborn law.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch codifies the same ruling in its closing clause, “והחררה תקבר לפרסמה שהיא פטורה מהבכורה,” which is the Gemara’s language in Segment 1. Placing it beside the afterbirth, which “may be fed to dogs,” sharpens the point: neither the afterbirth nor the mass is holy, yet only the mass needs burial, because only the mass looks like nothing at all and so needs a public act to make its legal effect known. Since the firstborn of a kosher animal is sanctified today as well, this is practical law.

Exempt from Bechora, Yet Not Impure: Nullification in the Majority

Source in Daf: 22a, Segments 2-3 (if the mass is a full offspring, why does it not impart impurity through contact or carrying? Rabbi Yochanan: “משום ביטול ברוב נגעו בה”; Rabbi Yochanan is consistent, since Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and Rabbi Shimon “said one thing”)

Rambam — Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:16

Hebrew:

בְּהֵמָה שֶׁשָּׁפְעָה חֲרָרַת דָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּפְטְרָה מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה לֹא בְּמַגָּע וְלֹא בְּמַשָּׂא עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בָּהּ צוּרַת נֵפֶל לְפִי שֶׁהִיא בְּטֵלָה בָּרֹב הַיּוֹצֵא עִמָּהּ. לְפִיכָךְ הִיא טְהוֹרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיְתָה רְאוּיָה לַגֵּר אַגַּב אִמָּהּ:

English:

When an animal discharges coagulated blood, even though such a discharge makes it exempt from the laws of the firstborn, it does not impart impurity, neither when touched, nor when carried unless there is the form of a fetus recognizable. The rationale is that it is nullified because there is a majority of other substances that are discharged with it. Therefore, it is pure even though it was initially fit for a stranger to eat together with its mother.

Connection: This halacha is the Gemara’s question and answer of Segment 2 turned into a ruling. The Rambam’s “אף על פי שנפטרה מן הבכורה” is the Gemara’s “למימרא דולד מעליא הוא,” and his “אינה מטמאה לא במגע ולא במשא” repeats the Gemara’s wording exactly. His reason, “לפי שהיא בטלה ברוב היוצא עמה,” is Rabbi Yochanan’s “משום ביטול ברוב.” The one law that seemed to contradict the other is resolved the way Rabbi Yochanan resolved it: the same fetus counts for the firstborn law and is nullified for impurity.

The Rambam adds a limit the Gemara implies: the mass is pure only “until it has the form of a fetus” (עד שיהיה בה צורת נפל). Once a recognizable fetus can be seen, there is nothing to nullify. His closing clause, “אף על פי שהיתה ראויה לגר אגב אמה,” stresses that the purity holds even though the mass, while still inside its mother, had the standing of real animal flesh. It is the nullification on emerging, not any lack of substance, that makes it pure.

The Afterbirth in the House: Rabbi Shimon Not Adopted

Source in Daf: 22a, Segment 4 (the mishna in Nidda: “השליא בבית הבית טמא… שאין שליא בלא ולד”; Rabbi Shimon: “ולד נימוק עד שלא יצא”)

Rambam — Hilchot Tumat Met 25:10

Hebrew:

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִפִּילָה שִׁלְיָא הַבַּיִת טָמֵא וַדַּאי. חֲזָקָה הוּא שֶׁאֵין שִׁלְיָא בְּלֹא וָלָד:

English:

When a woman discharged a placenta, the house in which she was located is certainly impure. It can be presumed that there is no placenta without a fetus.

Connection: The Rambam rules like the first tanna of the Nidda mishna, including its reason, “שאין שליא בלא ולד.” He adds “ודאי”: the house is impure as a matter of certainty, not merely out of doubt. Rabbi Shimon’s view, that the fetus dissolved and is nullified, is not adopted for a human afterbirth.

This means that the “one thing” Rabbi Yochanan found in Segment 3 is not codified the same way in both places. For the animal’s mass of blood the Rambam follows Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov and applies nullification (She’ar Avot HaTumot 1:16 above). For a woman’s afterbirth he follows the first tanna against Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara’s point was only that the two tannaim share a principle; it did not say that the halacha follows both of them. In the animal case the mishna’s majority view never contradicted Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s reasoning, while in the Nidda case Rabbi Shimon is a lone voice against an anonymous majority.

”Like a Skein”: When a Dead Fetus Imparts Impurity at the Womb’s Opening

Source in Daf: 22a, Segments 5-7 (Oholot 7:4: “אין לנפלים פתיחת הקבר עד שיעגילו ראש כפיקה”; Rav Huna’s woolen skein; the baraita of Rabbi Meir (warp), Rabbi Yehuda (woof) and Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok (tefifiyot); Ravin in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: “של אשה כשל שתי, של בהמה כשל ערב”)

Rambam — Hilchot Tumat Met 25:8

Hebrew:

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמֵּת עֵבָּרָהּ בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ אִם נַעֲשֵׂית רֹאשׁ הַנֵּפֶל כְּפִיקָה שֶׁל שְׁתִי כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּפְתַּח הָרֶחֶם עַד שֶׁנִּרְאֶה הָרֹאשׁ נִטְמָא הַבַּיִת מִפְּנֵי הָעֻבָּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא יָצָא:

English:

The following laws apply when the fetus being carried by a woman dies in her womb. If its head has reached the size of a weaving needle, when her womb opens and the head becomes visible, the house becomes impure because of the fetus even if it has not emerged yet.

Connection: Sefaria’s translation renders “פיקה” as “weaving needle,” but in our sugya the word means a skein or ball of thread (Segment 5). The Rambam codifies the Oholot mishna with the measure Ravin brought in the name of Rabbi Yochanan (Segment 7): for a woman, “כפיקה של שתי,” the warp skein. This is the measure Rabbi Meir gave in the baraita (Segment 6). The Rambam therefore adopts Rabbi Yochanan’s resolution, which gives each measure its own case, rather than choosing between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok’s tefifiyot marker is not codified.

Rambam — Hilchot Tumat Met 25:9

Hebrew:

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁמַּקְשָׁה לֵילֵד וְיָצְאָה מִבַּיִת לְבַיִת וְהִפִּילָה נֵפֶל מֵת בְּבַיִת שֵׁנִי הַבַּיִת הָרִאשׁוֹן טָמֵא בְּסָפֵק. שֶׁמָּא כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה בּוֹ יָצָא רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל נֵפֶל הַזֶּה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיָה רֹאשׁ הַנֵּפֶל כְּפִיקָה שֶׁל שְׁתִי. אֲבָל אִם הֶעֱגֵיל רֹאשׁ הַנֵּפֶל כְּפִיקָה הַבַּיִת הָרִאשׁוֹן טָהוֹר שֶׁאִלּוּ נִפְתַּח רַחְמָהּ שָׁם לֹא הָיְתָה יְכוֹלָה לְהַלֵּךְ עַל רַגְלֶיהָ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיְתָה נִטֶּלֶת בַּאֲגַפַּיִים וְהוֹצִיאוּהָ מִבַּיִת לְבַיִת הַבַּיִת הָרִאשׁוֹן טָמֵא בְּסָפֵק אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֶעֱגֵיל רֹאשׁ הַנֵּפֶל כְּפִיקָה שֶׁל שְׁתִי:

English:

If a woman was in the midst of labor and went from one house to another and miscarried in the second house, the first house is still impure because of a doubt: perhaps the head of the fetus had emerged while she was there. When does the above apply? When its head did not reach the size of a weaving needle. If, however, its head reached the size of a weaving needle, the first house is pure. For if her womb had opened to that degree, she would not be able to walk unsupported. Therefore if she was being supported by her shoulders and taken from one house to the other, the first is impure because of a doubt, even though its head reached the size of a weaving needle.

Connection: This halacha shows what the skein measure does in practice. The Rambam uses the mishna’s own verb, “העגיל ראש הנפל כפיקה” (compare “עד שיעגילו ראש כפיקה” in Segment 5), and again specifies the warp skein. Once the head is that large, a woman whose womb had opened could not have walked, so if she walked from the first house it must still be pure.

The second half of Ravin’s statement, that an animal fetus is measured by the thicker woof skein, does not appear in the Rambam’s laws of corpse impurity or in his laws of other sources of defilement. The rule about “opening of the grave” belongs to human corpse impurity, and the Rambam records only the human measure there.

The Large Skein of the Sack Makers: Earth from a Beit HaPeras or Abroad

Source in Daf: 22a, Segment 8 (Rabbi Yochanan’s third skein: “גוש הבא מבית הפרס, מארץ העמים — שיעורו כפיקה גדולה של סקאין, שהוא כחותם המרצופין”)

Rambam — Hilchot Tumat Met 11:3

Hebrew:

עֲפַר אֶרֶץ הָעַכּוּ”ם וַעֲפַר בֵּית הַפְּרָס מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְכַמָּה שִׁעוּרָן כְּחוֹתַם הַמַּרְצוּפִין וְהוּא כְּפִיקָה גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁל סַקָּאִין. עֲפַר בֵּית הַפְּרָס וַעֲפַר חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ שֶׁבָּא בְּיָרָק. אִם יֵשׁ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד כְּחוֹתַם הַמַּרְצוּפִין מְטַמֵּא וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף. שֶׁלֹּא גָּזְרוּ אֶלָּא עַל גּוּשׁ כִּבְרִיָּתוֹ. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיוּ אִגְּרוֹת בָּאוֹת מִחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לִבְנֵי כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן כִּסְאָה וּכְסָאתַיִם חוֹתָמוֹת וְלֹא חָשׁוּ לָהֶן מִשּׁוּם טֻמְאָה לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּחוֹתָם מֵהֶן כְּחוֹתַם הַמַּרְצוּפִין:

English:

The earth of the Diaspora and the earth of a beit hapras impart impurity when touched or carried, as explained. What is the measure that imparts impurity? The amount of earth necessary for a seal for sacks. This is the size of the large ball of a sack-maker’s needle. The following rules apply when the earth of the Diaspora or the earth of a beit hapras comes attached to a vegetable. If there is an amount the size of the seal of a sack in one place, it imparts impurity. If not, the various pieces of earth are not combined. The rationale is that our Sages instituted a decree only on a clod of earth in its natural state. An incident occurred when letters from the Diaspora were coming to the sons of the High Priests and there were about a se’ah or two of seals. They nevertheless did not show any concern regarding their impurity, because not one of the seals was as large as the seal of a sack.

Connection: The Rambam quotes the baraita of Segment 8 directly: the measure is “כחותם המרצופין והוא כפיקה גדולה של סקאין.” This is the third skein that Rabbi Yochanan, as Rav Dimi reported, had heard of without knowing its application (Segment 7), and the Gemara found it in the law of a clod of earth. The Rambam adds the practical consequence of the word “גוש”: the decree applies only to a clod in its natural state (גוש כברייתו), so scattered smaller bits do not combine. The letters sealed with clay from abroad were therefore no concern, because no single seal reached the size of a sack’s seal.

Brine Bought from an Am Ha’aretz

Source in Daf: 22a, Segments 9-11 (Reish Lakish in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: “הלוקח ציר מעם הארץ משיקו במים וטהור”; the “ממה נפשך” explanation; Rabbi Yirmeya: “לא שנו אלא לטבול בהן פיתו, אבל לקדירה לא, מצא מין את מינו וניעור”; Abaye’s objection and Rav Dimi’s reply)

Rambam — Hilchot Tumat Okhalin 16:5

Hebrew:

הַלּוֹקֵחַ צִיר מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ מַשִּׁיקוֹ בַּמַּיִם וְטָהוֹר שֶׁאִם הָיָה רֹב הַצִּיר מַיִם הֲרֵי הַמַּיִם מִטַהֲרִין בְּמִקְוֶה. וְאִם הָיָה רֻבּוֹ מֶלַח שֶׁל דָּגִים אֵינָהּ מְקַבֶּלֶת טֻמְאָה וְהַמַּיִם שֶׁבָּהּ בָּטְלוּ בְּמִעוּטָן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים לִטְבּל בָּהֶן פַּת. אֲבָל לִקְדֵרָה מָצָא מִין אֶת מִינוֹ וְנֵעוֹר וְנִמְצְאוּ רֹב הַמַּיִם טְמֵאִים. שֶׁהַמִּעוּט שֶׁהָיָה בַּצִּיר לֹא טָהוֹר בְּמִקְוֶה:

English:

When a person purchases fish brine from an unlearned person, he can make it pure by connecting it to the water of a mikveh. The rationale is as follows: If the majority of the brine is water, the water regains purity because of the mikveh. If the majority is fish brine, it is not susceptible to impurity and the water within the mixture is considered as negligible because of the small amount that is present. When does the above apply? When one seeks to dip bread in the mixture. If, however, one seeks to cook it in a pot containing water, one type finds its fellow and it becomes significant. Thus the majority of the water is impure, since the minimal amount that was in the brine was not purified in a mikveh.

Connection: This halacha follows the whole sugya in order. The opening is Reish Lakish’s ruling (Segment 9). The two-part reason is the Gemara’s “ממה נפשך” (Segment 10): if water is the majority, hashaka purifies it; if brine is the majority, brine cannot become impure and the minority of water is nullified. The closing limitation is Rabbi Yirmeya’s (Segment 11), in his words: “לטבול בהן פת… אבל לקדרה מצא מין את מינו ונעור.”

The Rambam therefore accepts Rabbi Yirmeya’s principle, and with it Rav Dimi’s answer to Abaye, that nullified impurity can return when it meets its own kind. He also explains how: once the brine is poured into a pot of water, the water becomes the majority, and the water that had been nullified in the brine was never itself purified in the mikveh (“שהמעוט שהיה בציר לא טהור במקוה”).

A Se’ah of Impure Teruma in a Hundred: The Rabbis Against Rabbi Eliezer

Source in Daf: 22a, Segment 11 and 22b, Segments 1-3 (Rav Dimi cites Terumot 5:2; Rabbi Eliezer: “תירום ותרקב, שאני אומר: היא סאה שנפלה היא סאה שעלתה”; the Rabbis: “תעלה, ותיאכל ניקודים, או קליות, או תילוש במי פירות, או תתחלק לעיסות”; the baraita begins “אותן חולין,” continued on 23a)

Rambam — Hilchot Terumot 14:13

Hebrew:

סְאָה תְּרוּמָה טְמֵאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה חֻלִּין טְהוֹרִין. וְכֵן סְאָה תְּרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְמֵאָה חֻלִּין טְמֵאִין. תַּעֲלֶה בְּאֶחָד וּמֵאָה וְתֵאָכֵל קְלָיוֹת אוֹ תִּלּוֹשׁ בְּמֵי פֵּרוֹת אוֹ פָּחוֹת מִכַּבֵּיצָה. שֶׁאֵין הַסְּאָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה הִיא הַסְּאָה עַצְמָהּ שֶׁעָלְתָה:

English:

When a se’ah of impure terumah falls into 100 se’ah of ordinary produce that is pure or a se’ah of pure terumah falls into 100 se’ah of ordinary produce that is impure, it should be removed and the terumah is nullified, because the new mixture is 101 times [the size of the terumah that fell in. That se’ah] should be eaten as roasted kernels, or it should be made into dough with fruit juice, or into dough that is less than the size of an egg. [The rationale is that] the se’ah which fell in is not [necessarily] the se’ah that was removed.

Connection: The Rambam rules like the Rabbis of the mishna (22b, Segment 2), “תעלה… ותאכל קליות או תלוש במי פרות או פחות מכביצה,” and his closing reason rejects Rabbi Eliezer’s in so many words. Rabbi Eliezer said “היא סאה שנפלה היא סאה שעלתה” (Segment 1); the Rambam writes “שאין הסאה שנפלה היא הסאה עצמה שעלתה.” The removed se’ah is not presumed to be the impure one, so it is given to a kohen and not left to rot.

The restrictions are the heart of Rav Dimi’s proof. The Rambam keeps them: the produce must be eaten roasted, kneaded with fruit juice (which does not make food susceptible to impurity) or in portions smaller than an egg-bulk. Even after nullification, the mixture may not be allowed to become susceptible to impurity. The Rambam also applies the same rule to the converse case, a se’ah of pure teruma that fell into impure non-sacred produce. Whether these restrictions really show that nullified impurity can “revive,” as Rav Dimi argued against Abaye, depends on the baraita that begins in Segment 3 and continues on 23a.

The Shulchan Aruch does not codify the laws of ritual purity, so the impurity rulings of this daf (the fetus, the afterbirth, the clod of earth, the brine and impure teruma) have no parallel there. These laws are preserved in the Rambam for when purity is again observed and the Temple is rebuilt.

Summary of Rulings