MISHNAH. FOR A FOETUS BORN FROM ITS MOTHER'S SIDE1 THERE IS NO NEED2 TO SPEND3 THE PRESCRIBED DAYS OF UNCLEANNESS4 OR THE DAYS OF CLEANNESS;5 NOR DOES ONE INCUR ON ITS ACCOUNT THE OBLIGATION TO BRING A SACRIFICE.6 R. SIMEON RULED: IT IS REGARDED AS A VALID BIRTH. ALL WOMEN ARE SUBJECT TO UNCLEANNESS7 [IF BLOOD APPEARED] IN THE OUTER CHAMBER,8 FOR IT IS SAID IN SCRIPTURE, HER ISSUE IN HER FLESH BE BLOOD;9 BUT A ZAB AND ONE WHO EMITTED SEMEN CONVEY NO UNCLEANNESS UNLESS THE DISCHARGE10 CAME OUT OF THE BODY. IF A MAN WAS EATING TERUMAH WHEN HE FELT THAT HIS LIMBS SHIVERED,11 HE TAKES HOLD OF HIS MEMBRUM12 AND SWALLOWS THE TERUMAH. AND THE DISCHARGES CONVEY UNCLEANNESS, HOWEVER SMALL THE QUANTITY, EVEN IF IT IS ONLY OF THE SIZE OF A MUSTARD SEED OR LESS.
GEMARA. R. Mani b. Pattish stated: What is the Rabbis' reason?13 Scripture said, If a woman have conceived seed and born14 a man child,15 implying:16 Only if she bears where she conceives.17 And R. Simeon?18 — That text19 implies that even if she bore in the same manner only as she conceived20 she21 is unclean by reason of childbirth.22 What, however, is R. Simeon's reason?23 — Resh Lakish replied: Scripture said, She bear,24 to include25 A FOETUS BORN FROM ITS MOTHER'S SIDE. And the Rabbis?26 — That text24 is required to include27 a tumtum28 and an hermaphrodite. Since it might have been presumed that as it is written man child29 and maid child30 [the laws in the context apply only to] one who is undoubtedly male or undoubtedly female but not to a tumtum or an hermaphrodite, hence we were informed that the law applies to the latter also. And R. Simeon?31 — He deduces it32 from a teaching of Bar Liwai; for Bar Liwai taught. For a son,33 implies: For any son, whatsoever his nature; For a daughter,33 for any daughter, whatsoever her nature. And the Rabbis?34 — They require this text for the deduction that a separate sacrifice is due for each son and for each daughter.35 And R. Simeon?31 — He deduced it32 from the following which a Tanna recited before R. Shesheth: This is the law for her that beareth36 teaches37 that a woman brings one sacrifice for many children. It might be presumed that she brings only one sacrifice for a birth and for a zibah … But would then one sacrifice suffice for a woman after childbirth who ate blood or for one after childbirth who ate forbidden fat? — Rather say: It might be presumed that a woman brings only one sacrifice for a birth that took place before the completion of her clean days and for one that took place after their completion.38 Therefore it was expressly written, 'This'.39 And the Rabbis?40 — Although 'this'41 was written it was also necessary to have the text, 'For a son or for a daughter'.42 For it might have been presumed that this law43 applies only to two distinct conceptions44 but45 that in the case of a simultaneous conception as, for instance, that of Judah and Hezekiah the sons of R. Hiyya,46 one sacrifice suffices,47 hence we were informed [that even in such a case separate sacrifices are required for each birth].
R. Johanan stated: R. Simeon, however, agrees that in the case of consecrated beasts [the body of the young extracted by means of a caesarean cut] is not sacred.48 What is the reason? He deduces the expression of 'birth' here49 from that of 'birth' in the case of the firstling:50 As in the latter case51 the reference is to one that openeth the womb52 so here also it is only to one that 'openeth the womb'. But why should not the expression of 'birth' here49 be deduced from that of 'birth' in the case of a human being:53 As in the latter case54 a foetus extracted from its mother's side is included55 so here also the young extracted from its mother's side should be included? — It stands to reason that the deduction should be made from the firstling, since 'the dam'56 might also be deduced from 'the dam'.57 On the contrary! Should not the deduction be made from the expression used of the human being, since thereby an ordinary birth58 would be deduced from an ordinary birth?59 But the fact is that the deduction was properly to be made from the firstling since in both cases60 the expression 'dam'61 is used, both are sacred beasts and both are subject to the laws of piggul, nothar62 and uncleanness.63 On the contrary! Should not the deduction be made from the expression used of the human being since both cases64 are those of ordinary birth,65 neither is restricted to the male sex,66 neither67 is naturally sacred,68 and neither69 is a priestly gift?70 The former71 are more in number.72
R. Hiyya son of R. Huna citing Raba observed, A Baraitha was taught which provides support for the statement of R. Johanan:73 R. Judah stated, This is the law of the burnt-offering, it is that which goeth up,74 behold these75 are three limitations
Niddah 40bexcluding1 a sacrifice that was slain in the night, whose blood was poured out,2 or whose blood was taken outside the hangings,3 which, even though it was placed upon the altar, must be taken down.4 R. Simeon stated: From the term 'burnt-offering'5 I would only know that the law applied to6 a valid burnt-offering; whence, however, the inference for including7 one that was slain in the night, whose blood was poured out,8 whose blood was taken outside the hangings3 or was kept overnight, that was taken out,9 that was unclean, nothar,10 one slain with the intention of eating it later than its permitted time limit or beyond its permitted place limits, whose blood was received or sprinkled by disqualified men,11 those sacrifices whose blood is to be sprinkled above12 and was sprinkled below,12 those whose blood is to be sprinkled below12 and was sprinkled above,12 those whose blood is to be applied within13 and was applied without,14 and a paschal lamb and a sin-offering that had not been slain as such?15 Whence, I ask, is the inference? Since it was explicitly said in Scripture, This is the law of the burnt-offering,16 the scope of the law is widened: One law for all that are placed upon the altar, so that once they have been put up they must not be taken down. As one might presume that I also include7 a beast that covered17 or was covered,18 that was set aside19 for an idolatrous purpose, that was worshipped, the hire of a harlot, the price of a dog, kil'ayim, trefah20 and one that had been extracted by means of a caesarean operation, it was explicitly stated, 'This'.21 But what reason do you see for including22 the former and for excluding the latter?
- To Next Folio -