גבי בכורות למאי הלכתא 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.
לבא אחריו בכור לנחלה ואין בכור לכהן 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.
סנדל דתנן גבי כריתות למאי הלכתא 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.
שאם תלד ולד דרך דופן וסנדל דרך רחם דמייתא קרבן אסנדל 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.
ולרבי שמעון דאמר יוצא דרך דופן ולד מעליא הוא מאי איכא למימר 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?
אמר רבי ירמיה שאם תלד ולד בהיותה עובדת כוכבים וסנדל לאחר שנתגיירה דמייתא קרבן אסנדל 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.
אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרב פפא ומי איתנהו להני שינויי והא תניא כשהן יוצאין אין יוצאין אלא כרוכין 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?
אמר רב פפא שמע מינה מכרך כריך ליה ולד לסנדל אפלגיה ומשלחיף ליה כלפי רישיה גבי בכורות כגון שיצאו דרך ראשיהם דסנדל קדים ונפיק גבי כריתות שיצאו דרך מרגלותיהם דולד קדים ונפיק 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.
רב הונא בר תחליפא משמיה דרבא אמר אפילו תימא מצומצמין ואיפוך שמעתתא גבי בכורות שיצאו דרך מרגלותיהם ולד דאית ביה חיותא סריך ולא נפיק סנדל דלית ביה חיותא שריק ונפיק גבי כריתות שיצאו דרך ראשיהן ולד דאית ביה חיותא מדנפיק רישיה הויא לידה סנדל עד דנפיק רוביה 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.
מתני׳ שליא בבית הבית טמא לא שהשליא ולד אלא שאין שליא בלא ולד 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.
רבי שמעון אומר נימוק הולד עד שלא יצא 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.
גמ׳ תנו רבנן שליא תחלתה דומה לחוט של ערב וסופה דומה כתורמוס וחלולה כחצוצרת ואין שליא פחותה מטפח רבי שמעון בן גמליאל אומר שליא דומה לקורקבן של תרנגולין שהדקין יוצאין ממנה 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.
תניא רבי אושעיא זעירא דמן חבריא חמשה שיעורן טפח ואלו הן שליא שופר שדרה דופן סוכה והאזוב 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.
שליא הא דאמרן שופר דתניא כמה יהא שיעור שופר פירש רבי שמעון בן גמליאל כדי שיאחזנו בידו ויראה לכאן ולכאן טפח 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.
שדרה מה היא דא"ר פרנך אמר רבי יוחנן שדרו של לולב צריך שיהא יוצא מן ההדס טפח דופן סוכה דתניא שתים כהלכתן שלישית אפילו טפח אזוב דתני רבי חייא אזוב טפח 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.
אמר רבי חנינא בר פפא דריש שילא איש כפר תמרתא תלת מתניתא ותרתי שמעתתא שיעורא טפח תרתי חדא היא אמר אביי אימא אמר רבי חייא אזוב טפח 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.
ותו ליכא והאיכא טפח על טפח על רום טפח מרובע מביא את הטומאה וחוצץ בפני הטומאה 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.
טפח קאמרינן טפח על טפח לא קאמרינן 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.
והא איכא אבן היוצא מן התנור טפח ומן הכירה שלש אצבעות חבור 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.
כי קאמרינן היכא דבציר מטפח לא חזי אבל הכא כ"ש דבציר מטפח יד תנור הוא 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.
והאיכא The Gemara asks: But aren’t there