מפת הסוגיא — חולין ע״אSugya map — Chullin 71

לדעת חכמים — הסוברים שעובר מת אינו מטמא — לשם מה בא הפסוק (״או בנבלת חיה טמאה״) שדרש ממנו ר׳ יוסי הגלילי?

§ The Gemara returns to explaining the opinion of the Rabbis, cited in the mishna, who hold that a dead fetus found inside its mother’s womb does not impart impurity, irrespective of whether it is of a kosher or a non-kosher animal. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili disagrees and holds that a dead fetus inside a non-kosher animal imparts impurity. He derives this from the verse: “A person who touched anything impure, or the carcass of a non-kosher ḥayya, or the carcass of a non-kosher behema, or the carcass of an impure creeping animal, and is guilty” (Leviticus 5:2), which is referring only to non-kosher animals. The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, why do I need this verse?

כל הפסוק בא ללמד את מה ששנה רבי בברייתא — שאין הפסוק מחייב קרבן עולה ויורד אלא במי שאכל קודש או נכנס למקדש בהעלם טומאה.

The Gemara answers: The entire verse comes to teach that which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught in the baraita cited earlier, that the verse obligates one to bring a sliding-scale offering only in cases where one partook of consecrated foods or entered the Temple while in a state of impurity of which one was unaware.

משנה: אישה שמת העובר בתוך רחמה, ופשטה המיילדת (״חיה״) את ידה לתוך הרחם ונגעה בעובר — המיילדת טמאה טומאת שבעה (טומאת מת), אך האישה עצמה טהורה עד שייצא הולד.

MISHNA: With regard to a woman whose fetus died in her womb and the midwife extended her hand into the womb and touched the fetus, the midwife is thereby rendered impure with the seven-day impurity imparted by a corpse, and the woman remains ritually pure until the offspring emerges from the womb.

גמרא: רבה אמר — כשם שדבר טמא הבלוע בתוך גוף אינו מטמא את הנוגע בו, כך דבר טהור הבלוע בגוף אינו מקבל טומאה אם נגע בו דבר טמא. למשל: בלע טבעת טהורה ונכנס לאוהל המת — אינה נטמאת.

GEMARA: Rabba says: Just as a ritually impure item that is encapsulated within a body does not impart impurity to an item that comes in contact with it, so too, a ritually pure item that is encapsulated within a body cannot be rendered impure if it comes in contact with an impure item. For example, if one swallowed a ring that was ritually pure and then entered a tent containing a corpse, the ring would not be rendered impure.

מנין שטומאה בלועה אינה מטמאה? שנאמר ״והאוכל מנבלתה יכבס בגדיו״ — יטבול ויטהר בשקיעת החמה. וכי לא מדובר אף במי שאכל סמוך לשקיעה? והרי בשעת השקיעה עדיין הנבלה במעיו ולא נתעכלה, ובכל זאת אמרה תורה שטהור — שהבלוע אינו מטמא.

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that an encapsulated impure item does not impart impurity? As it is written: “And one who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes, and be impure until the evening” (Leviticus 11:40), i.e., he must immerse his body and garments in a ritual bath, and he then becomes pure at sunset. Are we not dealing even with a case where one ate from the carcass close to sunset and then immersed? And yet the Merciful One states that he is pure once the sun sets, despite the fact that his stomach still contains pieces of the carcass that have not yet been digested. If so, it is apparent that an encapsulated impure item does not impart impurity.

דחייה: ושמא שונה שם — שהנבלה שאכל כבר אינה ראויה למאכל גר תושב, ולכן אינה מטמאת מצד עצמה (ולא משום שהיא בלועה)?

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps it is different there, as with regard to the prohibition against eating a carcass the Torah states: “You shall not eat any carcass; you may give it to the gentile resident who is in your cities” (Deuteronomy 14:21). The juxtaposition of the two parts of the verse teaches that the prohibition is limited to a carcass that is fit to be given to a gentile resident, i.e., it is fit for human consumption. Accordingly, perhaps the carcass that the person ate does not impart impurity, as it is no longer fit for a gentile resident, i.e., it is now unsuitable for human consumption.

תירוץ חלקי: ניחא לר׳ יוחנן הסובר שנבלה מטמאת — בין את האדם בין אוכלין — עד שתיפסל מאכילת כלב; אם כן הנבלה במעיו עדיין ראויה לכלב ומטמאת, ובכל זאת טהור — ראיה שהבלוע אינו מטמא.

The Gemara comments that the effectiveness of the proof depends on whether a carcass can impart impurity to a person despite its not being fit for human consumption: This proof works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says: A carcass imparts impurity to both this, a person, and that, food, even if it is unfit for human consumption, until it is no longer fit for consumption by a dog. According to this opinion the proof is understood well, as the carcass in the person’s stomach still has the ability to impart impurity to him because it is still fit for consumption by a dog. Therefore, it is apparent that the only reason it does not impart impurity is that it is encapsulated within his body.

אבל לבר פדא הסובר שטומאה חמורה (לטמא אדם) רק עד שתיפסל מאכילת גר, וטומאה קלה (לטמא אוכלין) עד אכילת כלב — אפשר לדחות: הנבלה במעיו אינה מטמאת את האדם משום שכבר נפסלה מאכילת גר, ולא משום שהיא בלועה!

But according to the opinion of bar Padda, who says a carcass has the severe form of ritual impurity, which can impart impurity to people only while it is still fit to be eaten by a gentile resident and it has the light form of ritual impurity even until the point that it is no longer fit for consumption by a dog, this proof is flawed. This is because it is possible the carcass in the person’s stomach does not render him impure simply because it is no longer fit for human consumption. Can one claim that the carcass cannot impart impurity because it is no longer fit for a gentile resident?

תירוץ: אמנם בפניו (כשיודע שבלעה) אינה ראויה לו, שמתעב לאכול דבר בלוע; אך שלא בפניו (כשאינו יודע) עדיין ראויה לו — כגון שבלע חתיכה קטנה בלא ללעוס — ולכן עדיין מטמאת, והראיה קיימת.

Granted that the carcass is not fit to be eaten by someone when it was eaten in his presence, as he is aware that it was swallowed and considers it disgusting to eat a swallowed item, but it is still sometimes fit for a person to eat when it was eaten not in his presence and he is unaware that it had been previously swallowed. This is possible where one consumed a small piece of food and did not chew it prior to swallowing. The Gemara concedes this point and therefore accepts the proof.

מצאנו מקור שטומאה בלועה אינה מטמאה; מנין שטהרה בלועה (דבר טהור הבלוע בגוף) אינה מקבלת טומאה כשנוגע בה טמא?

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the halakha that an encapsulated impure item does not impart impurity. From where do we derive that a pure item that is encapsulated within another body cannot be rendered impure if it comes in contact with an impure item?

קל וחומר: ומה כלי חרס המוקף צמיד פתיל, שאינו מציל על הטומאה שבתוכו מלטמא (שהרי ״טומאה רצוצה בוקעת ועולה עד לרקיע״) — בכל זאת מציל על הטהרה שבתוכו מלהיטמא;

The Gemara explains: It is derived through an a fortiori inference: If an earthenware vessel that is closed with a tightly sealed cover, which does not shield, i.e., prevent, the impure piece of a corpse contained within it from imparting impurity to other items in the same tent as it; the Gemara interrupts the explication of the inference and clarifies: As the Master said: The impure piece of a corpse that is in a tight space; e.g., it is buried in the ground and there is not a handbreadth of hollow space above it, beneath the dirt, breaks through the earth above it and ascends up to the heavens, imparting impurity in that path. The Gemara resumes the explication of the inference: Although the tightly sealed earthenware vessel does not shield the impure item, it does shield a pure item contained within it from being rendered impure (see Numbers 19:15).

סיום הקל וחומר: אדם, שכן מציל על הטומאה שבתוכו מלטמא (כפי שלמדנו) — אינו דין שיציל על הטהרה שבתוכו מלהיטמא?

Then with regard to a person, who does shield the impurity of a piece of a corpse contained within him from imparting impurity to other items in the same tent, as the Gemara derived above, is it not logical that he shields a pure item contained within him from being rendered impure?

פירכא: מה לכלי חרס שכן אינו מיטמא מגבו (מצדו החיצון) — תאמר באדם שמיטמא מגבו? כיון שבאדם דיני הטומאה חמורים, אין ללמוד עליו קולא מכלי חרס.

The Gemara challenges the inference: What is notable about an earthenware vessel? It is notable in that it cannot become impure through a source of impurity coming in contact with its exterior. Can you say, then, that it is comparable to a person, who can become impure through a source of impurity coming in contact with his exterior? Since here the halakhot concerning impurity of a person are more stringent than those concerning an earthenware vessel, one cannot apply to a person a leniency with regard to an earthenware vessel.

תירוץ: וכי על טומאה מגבו אנו מדברים? על טומאה מתוכו אנו מדברים! ולעניין זה אפשר להשוות אדם לכלי חרס.

The Gemara responds: Is that to say we are speaking of rendering an item impure through a source of impurity coming in contact with its exterior? We are in fact speaking of where the impurity comes in contact with its interior. For such cases, it is reasonable to compare the case of a person with an earthenware vessel.

ואדרבה — כלי חרס חמור מאדם, שכן מיטמא מאווירו (מטומאה שבחללו אף בלא נגיעה); ואילו אדם מיטמא מטומאה שבחללו, כגון בפיו, רק במגע — והקל וחומר עומד בעינו.

The Gemara adds: On the contrary, the contraction of impurity by an earthenware vessel is more stringent than that of a person, as it becomes impure through the presence of a source of impurity in its airspace, even if the source does not touch the vessel itself. By contrast, a person is rendered impure from a source of impurity in his airspace, e.g., in his mouth, only if it actually touches him, and the a fortiori inference remains valid.

מצאנו בלוע שנכנס מלמעלה (דרך הפה); בלוע שנכנס מלמטה (דרך פי הטבעת) מנין? קל וחומר: ומה למעלה, שאינו מקום עיכול — מציל; למטה, שמקום עיכול — אינו דין שיציל?

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the halakha that an impure item encapsulated in a body that entered it from above, i.e., through the mouth, does not impart impurity. From where do we derive that an impure item encapsulated in a body that entered it from below, i.e., through the rectum, also does not impart impurity? The Gemara answers: It is derived through an a fortiori inference: And if, when the impure item enters from above, through the mouth, which is a place that does not digest the food, the body nevertheless shields the impure item from imparting impurity, then with regard to a case where the impure item enters from below, which is a place that does digest food, is it not logical that the body should shield it from imparting impurity?

פירכא ויישוב: וכי העיכול שלמטה נעשה אלא על ידי הלעיסה והעיכול שלמעלה? אף על פי כן, העיכול שלמטה גדול יותר — והקל וחומר עומד.

The Gemara challenges the basis of the inference: Isn’t digestion performed below only by means of the chewing and digestive functions of the body above? The Gemara explains: Even so, the digestion performed below is greater than that performed above.

מצאנו בלוע באדם; בלוע בבהמה מנין? קל וחומר: ומה אדם המיטמא אף מחיים (כגון מצורע או זב) מציל את הבלוע — בהמה שאינה מיטמאת מחיים, אינו דין שתציל את הבלוע?

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the halakha that an impure item encapsulated in the body of a person does not impart impurity; from where do we derive that an impure item encapsulated in the body of an animal does not impart impurity? The Gemara answers: It is derived through an a fortiori inference: If the body of a person, who can impart impurity even while he is still alive, e.g., if he is a leper or a zav, nevertheless shields the impure item encapsulated inside him from imparting impurity, then with regard to an animal, which does not impart impurity while it is alive, is it not logical that it should shield an impure item encapsulated inside it from imparting impurity?

פירכא: מה לאדם שכן צריך שהייה בבית המנוגע (כדי שייטמאו בגדיו) — תאמר בבהמה שאינה צריכה שהייה, אלא כליה נטמאים מיד? כיון שבבהמה הדין חמור, אין ללמוד עליה קולא מאדם.

The Gemara challenges the inference: What is notable about the impurity of a person? It is notable in that if he entered a leprous house, in order for his garment to be rendered impure he needs to remain in the leprous house for a minimal period of time (see Leviticus 14:33–53). Can you say, then, that it is comparable to an animal, which does not need to remain in a leprous house for a minimal period of time? Rather, any utensils placed upon it are rendered impure immediately upon its entry. Since here the halakhot concerning impurity of an animal are more stringent than those concerning a person, one cannot necessarily apply to an animal a leniency with regard to a person.

יישוב: בהמה שאינה צריכה שהייה — לאיזה דין? לעניין כלים שעל גבה, שנטמאים מיד. אבל אף אדם אינו צריך שהייה לעניין כלים שעל כתפו — שאף הם נטמאים מיד; ואין כאן חומרא יתרה בבהמה.

The Gemara responds: When it is stated about an animal that it does not need to remain in a leprous house for a minimal period of time, with regard to what halakha was that said? A living animal itself cannot be impure. Perforce, the statement is referring to utensils that are placed upon its back, and they are rendered impure immediately upon entry. But in this regard there is no difference between animals and people: A person as well does not need to remain in the leprous house for a minimal period of time in order to render impure any utensils placed on his back. Rather, they are rendered impure immediately upon entry.

שנינו (נגעים): הנכנס לבית המנוגע וכליו על כתפיו וסנדליו וטבעותיו בידיו — הוא והם טמאים מיד. היה לבוש כליו וסנדליו ברגליו וטבעותיו באצבעו — הוא טמא מיד, והם טהורים עד שישהה כדי אכילת פרס; פת חיטים ולא שעורים, מיסב ואוכל בליפתן (שאז זמן האכילה קצר). הרי שאף באדם הכלים שעליו נטמאים מיד.

This is as we learned in a mishna (Nega’im 13:9): With regard to one who enters a leprous house with his clothes resting on his shoulders but who is not wearing them in the normal manner, and his sandals and his rings are in his hands, both he and they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, are rendered ritually impure immediately. If he was dressed in his clothes, and his sandals were on his feet and his rings were on his fingers, he is rendered impure immediately upon entering the house, but they, the clothes, sandals, and rings, remain pure until he remains in the house for the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. This calculation is made with wheat bread and not with barley bread, which takes more time to eat than wheat bread. In addition, the calculation is made with regard to one who is reclining, and eating the bread together with a relish usually consumed with bread, which hastens the eating.

רבא הקשה על רבה: למה הוצרך לחדש את שני הדינים? שניהם כבר שנויים במשנה — גם טומאה בלועה וגם טהרה בלועה.

§ Rabba stated above that an encapsulated impure item cannot impart impurity and that an item that is ritually pure that is encapsulated within another body cannot be rendered impure. Rava said: Why is this statement necessary? We learn both halakhot in a mishna: We learn about an encapsulated impure item, and we learn about an encapsulated pure item.

טומאה בלועה — שנינו (מקואות): בלע טבעת טמאה (טומאת מת), טובל ואוכל בתרומתו, שכן הטבעת בלועה ואינה מטמאת. הקיאהּ — שבה לטמא, שלא נטהרה בטבילתו, ומטמאת אותו ביציאתה.

Rava elaborates: With regard to an encapsulated impure item, the halakha is as we learned (Mikvaot 10:8): If someone swallowed a ring that was impure due to having been in contact with a corpse, he is thereby rendered impure. To render himself pure he immerses and then he may partake of his teruma, despite the fact that the impure ring is still inside him. The reason this is permitted is that since the ring in encapsulated inside the person’s body it cannot impart impurity. If he vomited out this ring it remains impure, as it was not purified by his immersion, and therefore it renders him impure upon its exit from his body.

טהרה בלועה — אף היא שנויה (מקואות): בלע טבעת טהורה ונכנס לאוהל המת ונטמא הוא; הזה עליו (ביום שלישי ושביעי), שנה וטבל, ואז הקיאהּ — הרי הטבעת כמו שהיתה, טהורה, שלא נטמאה באוהל המת.

Likewise, we learn the halakha that an encapsulated pure item cannot be rendered impure, as we learn in the same mishna (Mikvaot 10:8): If one swallowed a ritually pure ring and then entered a tent containing a corpse, thereby contracting impurity, and then in order to render him pure someone sprinkled upon him the water that is mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, once on the third day and again on the seventh day as required, and then he immersed, thereby completing the purification process; and then he vomited out the ring, the ring is pure as it always was, i.e., it was not rendered impure from the corpse.

יישוב: כשאמר רבה את חידושו, התכוון למקרה שבלע שתי טבעות יחד — אחת טמאה ואחת טהורה הנוגעות זו בזו בתוך הגוף — שאף בזה אין הטמאה מטמאת את הטהורה. וזה לא שנינו במשנה.

The Gemara answers: The cases in the mishna concern the possibility of imparting impurity from the ring to the body within which it is contained and vice versa. But when Rabba was speaking he was referring to imparting impurity from one item to another where both are contained together inside a body, such as where a person swallowed two rings, one impure and one pure, and they came in direct contact with one another. Rabba taught that even in this case the impure ring does not render the pure ring impure.

קושיא: והרי במשנתנו העובר המת והמיילדת דומים לשתי טבעות (העובר טמא והמיילדת ״טהורה בלועה״ בתוך גופה), ובכל זאת מטמא העובר את המיילדת — בניגוד לחידוש רבה!

The Gemara objects: But what about the mishna’s case of a dead fetus in its mother’s womb, and a midwife who touched it there, which is similar to the case of two swallowed rings, and yet the mishna rules that the fetus renders the midwife impure.

רבה תירץ: שונה עובר, הואיל וסופו לצאת (ולכן כבר עתה אינו ״בלוע״ גמור). תמה רבא: וכי עובר סופו לצאת וטבעת אין סופה לצאת? אף הטבעת תצא! אלא אמר רבא: בני פומבדיתא יודעים טעם הדבר — ומיהו? רב יוסף.

Rabba said: A fetus is different from a ring in this regard, since it will ultimately leave the womb. Rava said in puzzlement: Is that to say that a fetus will ultimately leave the womb, but a ring that someone swallowed will not ultimately leave his body? A ring will certainly be expelled eventually as well. Rather, Rava said: The scholars of Pumbedita know the reason for this matter, and who is the Sage referred to as the scholars of Pumbedita? It is Rav Yosef.

רב יוסף בשם רב יהודה בשם שמואל: טומאת המיילדת אינה מן התורה אלא מדברי סופרים. ולמה הדגיש זאת? שלא תאמר שדין המשנה רק לר׳ עקיבא הסובר ״עובר במעי אישה טמא״ מן התורה — אלא אף לר׳ ישמעאל הסובר ״עובר במעי אישה טהור״, גזרו חכמים על המיילדת טומאה מדרבנן.

As Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This impurity of the midwife in the mishna’s case is not in effect by Torah law; rather, it was decreed by rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: What was Shmuel’s intention in emphasizing: It is not in effect by Torah law; rather, it was decreed by rabbinic law? It should have sufficed for him to say simply the impurity is decreed by rabbinic law. The Gemara answers: He said this so that you should not say that the ruling of the mishna is only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that one who touches a dead fetus in a woman’s womb is impure by Torah law, and that is why the midwife was rendered impure. Rather, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that one who touches a dead fetus in a woman’s womb is pure by Torah law, nevertheless, the Sages decreed that a midwife who touches it is impure by rabbinic law.

מה טעם הגזירה? אמר רב הושעיא: גזירה שמא יוציא הולד את ראשו אל מחוץ לפרוזדור (פתח הרחם) — שאז ייחשב כנולד ויטמא מן התורה — והמיילדת לא תרגיש שחזר ותסבור בטעות שנשארה טהורה.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this decree? Rav Hoshaya said: It is a rabbinic decree lest the fetus extend its head out of the concealed opening of its mother’s womb. If it did, it would be regarded as having been born, and it would then be ritually impure by Torah law. The Sages were concerned that the fetus extended its head and then the head returned inside but the midwife did not notice. Consequently, when she touched the fetus she mistakenly assumed she remained ritually pure. To safeguard against this, the Sages decreed that in any case where she touches the dead fetus, she is ritually impure.

קושיא ויישוב: אם כן, יגזרו טומאה אף על האישה עצמה, שמא לא תרגיש שיצא הראש? תשובה: אישה מרגשת בגופה אם יצא ראש הולד. ומדוע לא תודיע למיילדת? תשובה: טרודה היא בצער הלידה ואינה נותנת דעתה להזהירהּ.

The Gemara objects: If so, the Sages should also decree that the woman herself, who is carrying the fetus, is impure, since she also might not notice that the fetus’s head emerged. The Gemara explains: A woman accurately senses with regard to her own body whether the head of the fetus had emerged. The Gemara asks: But then she would have said this to the midwife. Why is there a need for a decree? The Gemara answers: Since the mother is distracted by the pain of childbirth, she does not have the presence of mind to warn the midwife.

ביאור המחלוקת: שנינו בברייתא — ״וכל אשר יגע על פני השדה״ מלמד שמיטמא רק בנוגע במת גלוי, למעט עובר במעי אישה; דברי ר׳ ישמעאל. ר׳ עקיבא אומר: ״על פני השדה״ בא לרבות גולל ודופק (כיסוי הקבר ודפנותיו) שמטמאים.

The Gemara cited a dispute as to whether one who touches a dead fetus in a woman’s womb is ritually impure. It now elucidates that dispute: What is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and what is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And whoever in the open field touches one who is slain by the sword, or one who dies on his own, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be impure seven days” (Numbers 19:16). The phrase “in the open field” indicates that one is rendered impure only in a case where he touches an exposed corpse. This serves to exclude one who touches a dead fetus in a woman’s womb from being rendered impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: This phrase serves to include the grave cover and the grave walls, upon which the cover rests, as sources of impurity that render impure anyone who touches them.

ולר׳ ישמעאל, גולל ודופק נלמדים מהלכה למשה מסיני, לא מן הפסוק. ולר׳ עקיבא — מנין שעובר במעי אישה טמא מן התורה? אמר ר׳ אושעיא: ״הנוגע במת בנפש״ — איזהו מת הנמצא בתוך נפש (גוף) של אדם? הוי אומר זה עובר שבמעי אישה.

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yishmael derive that the grave cover and the grave walls render one who touches them impure? He learned this halakha through tradition, not from a verse. The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive that a dead fetus in a woman’s womb is impure by Torah law? Rabbi Oshaya said he derives it from the verse that states: “Whoever touches of a corpse, of the life of a person that died, he will be impure” (Numbers 19:13). The term “of the life” can also be interpreted as: Inside the life. What is the case of a corpse that is inside the life of a person? You must say that this is a dead fetus inside a woman’s womb.

ולר׳ ישמעאל פסוק זה נצרך ללמד שרביעית דם הבאה מן המת מטמאת — ״הנוגע במת בנפש האדם״, איזו ״נפש״ של אדם מטמאת? הוי אומר זו רביעית דם, שכן הדם הוא הנפש (ובציר ממנו אין אדם חי).

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yishmael requires that verse to teach about a quarter-log of blood that comes from a corpse, meaning that even it imparts impurity like a corpse, as it is stated: “Whoever touches of a corpse, of the life of a person that died” (Numbers 19:13). What is the case of a life of a person that imparts impurity? You must say this is referring to a quarter-log of blood, as blood is regarded as the life force of a person, as the verse states: “For the blood is the life” (Deuteronomy 12:23), and a person requires a minimum of a quarter-log of blood to survive.

ור׳ עקיבא אינו צריך פסוק זה לרביעית דם, לשיטתו — שאף רביעית דם הבאה משני מתים מטמאת באוהל. כדתניא: ר׳ עקיבא אומר, מנין לרביעית דם הבאה משני מתים שמטמאה באוהל?

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Akiva does not accept this derivation. He conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says even a quarter-log of blood that comes from two corpses imparts ritual impurity in a tent to people and other items that are under the same roof. As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that a quarter-log of blood that came out of two separate corpses also imparts ritual impurity in a tent?

שנאמר (בכהן גדול): ״ועל כל נפשֹת מת לא יבא״ — לשון רבים ״נפשֹת״ מלמד שאף דם משני מתים מצטרף, ולשון יחיד ״מת״ מלמד ששיעור אחד (רביעית) לכולם; שתי נפשות ושיעור אחד.

It is derived from a verse, as it is stated with regard to the prohibition against priests coming in contact with a dead body: “He shall not come upon any people that are a corpse [nafshot met]” (Leviticus 21:11). The use of the plural form “people [nafshot]” indicates that the blood imparts impurity even if it comes from two people, as blood is referred to as “nefesh” (see Deuteronomy 12:23), and the use of the singular form “corpse [met]” indicates that this blood combines to complete one measure, i.e., the minimum amount of a quarter-log required to impart impurity.