1)

(a)In the same vein as we just asked on the previous Mishnah, we ask why the Tana sees fit to insert Sandal in the Mishnah in Bechoros ('ha'Mapeles Sandal, ha'Ba Acharav B'chor le'Nachalah ve'Ein B'chor le'Kohen'). The problem is that - this is obvious, since, in any event, the baby that is born together with the Sandal is the B'chor for the Kohen.

(b)And we answer that - the baby that is born after it, refers to the baby that is born (not a year or two later, but) immediately after the Sandal, to teach us that even it is not the firstborn for the Kohen.

(c)And the Tana finds it is necessary to insert Sandal in the Mishnah regarding Kerisus (with reference to the Chiyuv to bring a Korban Yoledes) ...

1. ... according to the Tana Kama, in a case - where the V'lad was a Yotzei Dofen (which he does not consider a V'lad in this regard) whereas the Sandal was miscarried by means of a regular birth.

2. ... according to Rebbi Shimon (who does consider a Sandal a V'lad in this regard), in the case of - a Giyores, who gave birth to the V'lad before the conversion (when she was not yet Chayav a Korban Yoledes, and the Sandal after it.

(d)The Rabbanan query Rebbi Yirmiyah however, from a Beraisa, which explains - that - the V'lad and the Sandal came out intertwined (Yatz'u Keruchin) ...

(e)... so how can a woman possibly convert between one and the other, and how can the Sandal exempt the V'lad that follows it from the Bechorah?

2)

(a)To solve the problem, Rav Papa explains Yatz'u Keruchin to mean that - the head is stuck to the navel of the Sandal.

(b)Consequently, in the case of ...

1. ... Bechoros - the V'lad pushed the Sandal out first with its head.

2. ... Kerisus - the V'lad emerged first via its feet.

(c)Rav Tachlifa in the name of Rava inverts the sequence. He concurs with the solution regarding Bechoros and Kerisus, even if the V'lad and the Sandal are joined in the middle, and the reason that the Sandal ...

1. ... emerged first by B'chor is - because, being devoid of life, it slipped out (feet first), whilst the V'lad, which contains life, held on to its mother's stomach with its hands.

2. ...is considered as having emerged last by Kerisus is - because even though both emerged simultaneously, head first, the emergence of the head only is considered Leidah vis-a-vis a V'lad, but not vis-a-vis a Sandal (until most of it has emerged).

3)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that a Shilya lying in a room renders the room Tamei - based on the principle Ein Shilya be'Lo V'lad.

(b)Rebbi Shimon disagrees. According to him, if no V'lad is visible, it means that it melted before it emerged, turned into blood, and merged with the blood of the birth.

(c)The Tana explains that one end of a Shilya is thin like a thread the other - as broad as a Turmus-bean.

(d)According to an alternative version - it is the head of the Shilya that resembles a Turmus-bean.

4)

(a)The Tana describes a Shilya - as hollow as a trumpet.

(b)The minimum Shi'ur he gives for a Shilya is - a Tefach.

(c)According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the Shilya resembles - the stomach of a chicken (from which the intestines emerge).

(d)Rebbi Oshaya Ze'ira de'min Chabarya (see commentaries in Chulin 12b) lists - four items (besides Shilya) that have a Shi'ur Tefach); Shofar, Lulav, Succah and Eizov).

5)

(a)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in a Beraisa defines the Shi'ur of a Shofar - as long enough to grasp in one's hand and protrude at both ends (so that everyone can see that it is a Shofar).

(b)We know that this is equivalent to a Tefach - because a Tefach comprises four thumb-breadths (slightly more than the width of one's hand).

(c)Shedrah, in the current context, refers to - the spine of a Lulav (the central stem up to where the leaves no longer branch out from it).

(d)This is based on a statement by Rebbi Parnach Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who rules that - the Shedrah of a Lulav should protrude one Tefach above the top of the Hadasim.

(e)The last two items comprise a Beraisa concerning Succah, and a Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chiya that the hyssop of the Parah Adumah must measure a Tefach. The Tana there states that - a Succah that comprises two regular walls and the third, a Tefach, is Kasher.

6)

(a)Of the above rulings - four are Masnita (Mishnahs or Beraisos), and one (Shedro shel Lulav), the statement of an Amora.

(b)To reconcile this with Rebbi Chanina bar Papa citing Shilo from the village of Tamarta, who presents them as three Masnita and two statements of Amora'im Abaye - amends Rebbi Chiya's statement (Eizov Tefach) to a personal one (and not as a Beraisa, as Rebbi Chanina bar Papa originally presented it).

(c)We query Rebbi Oshaya Ze'ira from a Mishnah in Ohalos however, which rules that something that is a cubic Tefach - creates an Ohel to transmit Tum'ah from a Meis that is underneath one end to something that is underneath the other.

(d)Rebbi Oshaya does not include it in his list - because he is talking about a straightforward Shi'ur Tefach (not a cubic one).

7)

(a)The Mishnah in Keilim considers a piece of stone that is jutting out three Tefachim from a Kirah, attached (regarding rendering Tamei a food that is on it). The Shi'ur that it gives for a stone that is jutting out from a Tanur is - a Tefach (but not more).

(b)The practical difference between a Kirah and a Tanur is that - the former can hold two pots, whereas the latter can only hold one.

(c)Rebbi Oshaya declines to insert the stone handle of a Tanur in his list - because he only incorporates items whose Shi'ur is exactly a Tefach, not more and not less, whereas if a jutting stone is considered a handle and is therefore Bateil to the oven, how much more so one that is less than a Tefach.

8)

(a)In the Mishnah in Keilim, Rebbi Meir gives the same Shi'ur - of four Tefachim for an oven Lechatchilah and for the remains of a large broken one.

(b)The Chachamim however, disagree in the case of a small oven, whose Shi'ur they give as a Kol-Shehu, which Rebbi Yanai defines as - a Tefach.

(c)Such a small oven can be used - for little girls to play with.

9)

(a)And the reason that Rebbi Oshaya Ze'ira does not include it in his list of things that require a Shi'ur Tefach is - because he does not include cases that are subject to Machlokes (such as here, where Rebbi Meir disagrees).

(b)In fact, the same answer will also apply to the previous case 'Even ha'Yotzei min ha'Tanur', where Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the Tana Kama - confining the Din of a Tefach to the space between the oven and the wall.

(c)Both according to the Tana Kama and according to Rebbi Yehudah (in their respective rulings), more than a Tefach is not considered attached - because most people tend to cut it off.

(d)Rebbi Oshaya Ze'ira declines to include in his list of items of one Tefach ...

1. ... the Misgeres (the ornamental rim on the Aron that was a Tefach in height) - because he does not list cases that the Torah mentions specifically.

2. ... the lid of the Aron (which we know by tradition, was a Tefach thick) - because he is not concerned with Kodshim (an answer which applies to the previous case as well).

3. ... the beam at the entrance of a Mavoy, which must be a Tefach thick) - because he is only concerned with d'Oraysos, not de'Rabbanans.

10)

(a)Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marsa, citing Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, draws a distinction between a Shilya that emerges within three days of the V'lad - in which case we attribute the Shilya to the V'lad, and one that emerges after three days - when we assume that there must have been another V'lad ...

(b)... in which case, assuming the first V'lad was a Zachar, we suspect that the woman may have given birth to a girl (which melted after it was born). And even if the first V'lad was a girl, we will be Machmir in a case where she sights blood on the eighty-first day after the birth to the V'lad and then again eight days later, and consider it the first day of Nidus (rendering her Tamei for seven days) rather than the first Re'iyah of Zivus (which would have rendered her Tamei for only one day).

(c)Rav Yitzchak bar Marsa had no answer to Rav Kahana's query from another statement of Rav however, where he said that - the second twin does not delay at all, but comes out immediately after the first one.

(d)Rav Kahana therefore suggested that - the Din of three days is confined to where the V'lad was a Nefel, but where it was a live V'lad, we do not suspect a second V'lad later.

11)

(a)When Rav Kahana said that, Rav Yitzchak bar Marsa commented that - Rav had specifically made the same distinction (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

(b)One attributes the Shilya to the live V'lad that preceded it - even by as much as ten days.

(c)Shmuel was sitting with the Talmidim of Rav and Rav Yehudah, when they saw Rav Yosef b'rei de'Rav Menasheh from Davil coming towards them Ba'ali ve'Asi - hurrying towards them.

(d)Shmuel described him as - someone who asks few She'eilos, and who can easily be stymied.

12)

(a)When Shmuel asked Rav Yosef b'rei de'Rav Menasheh from Davil what Rav had said about a Shilya, he replied that - we only attribute a Shilya to a V'lad that would have lived had it been born in the ninth month (to preclude one that is born with one thigh or a Guf Atum (a body that is not complete), a Beheimah, Chayah or bird, by all of which we will assume that there was another V'lad, even if the Shilya emerged within three days of the first one.

(b)When Shmuel asked the Talmidim of Rav about it - they confirmed that this was what Rav had said.

(c)And he was subsequently cross with Rav Yehudah (who had been a Talmid of Rav until his (Rav's) death - for not telling him about this ruling of Rav.

13)

(a)When Rebbi Yossi ben Shaul asked Rebbi about a woman who miscarries ...

1. ... a dove and a Shilya, he replied that - we can only attribute a Shilya to a species that has a Shilya (such as Adam, Beheimah and Chayah), but not to a bird.

2. ... a dove with a Shilya attached to it, he replied that - this is not possible.

(b)We query Rebbi however from a Beraisa which discusses a woman who miscarries a sort of animal, beast or bird together with a Shilya. The Beraisa rules in a case where the Shilya ...

1. ... is attached to the V'lad - that we do not contend with another V'lad.

2. ... is not attached to the V'lad - then we do.

14)

(a)When the Tana continues 'Hareini Matil aleihen Chomer Sh'nei V'lados', he means that - assuming the first V'lad to have been a Zachar, we suspect that there was also a Nekeivah, and the woman must observe the Chumros of both (the days of Tum'ah of a Nekeivah, and the days of Taharah of a Zachar [see also Tosfos DH 'Chomer']) ...

(b)... because we suspect that - both the Sh'fir of the Shilya, and the Shilya of the Sh'fir (the V'lad), melted.

(c)The above interpretation of Chomer Sh'nei V'lados is the opinion of Rebbi Meir, who considers a Beheimah, Chayah and Of, a V'lad. According to the Chachamim, who do not, it means that - she has to observe the fourteen days of Tum'ah of a Nekeivah, in case a Nekeivah was born together with the Shilya, but no days of Taharah, in case the Shilya belonged to the Beheimah ... .

(d)The Kashya this Beraisa now poses on Rebbi (though it is difficult to understand how one can query a Tana from a Beraisa) is that - he dismissed the possibility of a Shilya being attached to a V'lad in the shape of a bird, yet the Beraisa categorically states (with regard to the Shilya of a Beheimah, Chayah ve'Of) 'bi'Zeman she'Keshurah Imahen, Ein Chosheshin li'Velad Acher'.