Niddah 40a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

1.

An exceptional exit,

an offspring that exits from its mother’s womb through an incision made in the wall of its mother’s uterus, its exit through the wall is not considered “birth” with regard to the laws of a woman who gives birth. Therefore,

one does not observe days of impurity for it,

since its mother is not impure with the impurity of childbirth [as the law of a woman who gives birth,

who is impure for one week after giving birth to a male and two weeks after giving birth to a female.]

And

likewise,

days of purity

do not apply to her, since this woman who gave birth does not have the status of pure blood that every woman who gives birth has [which are thirty-three days for a male offspring or sixty-six days for a female offspring]

. And one is not liable for it,

for its birth,

an offering

of a woman who gave birth. And the reason for all these laws is as stated: the birth of an exceptional exit is not considered birth.

Rabbi Shimon says:

an exceptional exit

is considered like an ordinary newborn

offspring. Therefore, one observes for it days of impurity and days of purity, and one is liable for its birth to bring the offering of a woman who gave birth.

2.

All women become impure

with impurity of menstruation or of a woman with an irregular flow

in the “outer house,”

which is the corridor located between the uterus and the outer side of the body.

That is, even though the blood did not exit from the corridor to outside her body, since the blood exited from the uterus into the corridor [through which the blood passes on its way outside the body], she is impure.

As it is stated

Leviticus 15]

“Her flow shall be blood, in her flesh.”

The verse teaches with the words “in her flesh” that even if the blood is still found in her flesh and has not exited outside her body, she is impure, since the blood has already exited from the source into the corridor.

But a man with a flux and one who has experienced a seminal emission do not render impure until their impurity exits

[their seminal emission or flux]

outside.

That is, even if the flux or the semen has been displaced from its place and is already in the tube within the organ, the person does not become impure with impurity of a flux or with the impurity of one who has experienced a seminal emission until the flux or the semen exits outside his body.

If he was eating teruma and felt that his limbs were shaken,

that the semen had been displaced from its place and was about to exit outside his body, he

grasps his organ

in a manner that prevents the semen from exiting,

and swallows the teruma,

before the semen exits and he becomes impure.

And they render impure

the man with a flux and the one who has experienced a seminal emission

with any amount, even

if a small measure exited from them

like a mustard seed, and with less than this.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that according to the opinion of the first tanna [the Sages], the birth of an offspring in the manner of an “exceptional exit” does not render its mother impure with impurity of childbirth.

Rav Mani bar Patis said: What is the reason of the Sages?

The verse says

[Leviticus 12]

“When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male,” until she gives birth in the place where she “conceives.”

The verse teaches that the impurity of a woman who gives birth stated in the passage applies only if the offspring exited through the place where the woman “conceives” during intercourse [which is the corridor, the “outer house” of the uterus]. But regarding birth in the manner of an “exceptional exit”,

where the offspring did not exit through the place where she conceives during intercourse,

the law of days of impurity and days of purity and the obligations of offerings, which are explained there in the passage “When a woman conceives,” was not stated.

And Rabbi Shimon,

what does he learn from the verse “When a woman conceives”?

That

the exposition from this verse comes to say

that even if she did not give birth

her mother

but

a liquefied substance

like that which her mother emitted,

she too is

impure with impurity of childbirth.

And Rabbi Shimon, what is his reason?

Why did he expound the verse in this manner and not as the Sages explained it?

Reish Lakish said: The verse says “‘And if she gives birth to a female’ and she shall be impure for two weeks”,

“And if a female”

gives birth

“and she shall be impure for two weeks”,

and it would have been possible to write “And if a female, and she shall be impure for two weeks,” since this continues the verse “When a woman conceives and gives birth to a male,” and they learn from the superfluous word “gives birth”

to include

any kind of birth of an

exceptional exit.

And the Gemara discusses:

And the Sages,

what do they learn from the superfluous word “gives birth”?

And the Gemara explains:

This “

gives birth”

is needed to include a tumtum,

who has skin-flesh covering his organ, and it is impossible to recognize whether he is male or female.

And an androgynos,

who has both male signs and female signs, and the Sages are uncertain whether he is male or female 4 .

It might enter your mind to say,

since in the verse

“male and female” is written,

perhaps specifically the birth of a

definite male

or a

definite female

renders the woman who gives birth impure with impurity of childbirth,

but not a tumtum and an androgynos.

It teaches us that the birth of a tumtum and an androgynos also renders the woman who gives birth impure.

And Rabbi Shimon

from where does he know that also in the birth of a tumtum and an androgynos the woman who gives birth has days of impurity and purity?

He derives it from what bar Livai taught.

For bar Livai taught: “For a male,” a male of every kind,

every type of male, even one whose being male is not recognizable.

“For a female,” a female of every kind,

every type of female, even one whose being female is not recognizable.

And the Sages,

what do they learn from the verse “For a male”, and what from the verse “For a female”?

and what do they learn from the verse “for a female”?

This is needed to obligate

a separate offering

for

the birth of

each male, and to obligate

a separate offering

for

the birth of

each female,

when the conception of the second offspring was during the days of purity of the first offspring, and its birth was after the days of purity of the first.

And Rabbi Shimon,

from where does he know that the woman who gives birth is liable for an offering for each male and for each female? —

He derives it from what a tanna taught before Rav Sheshet:

[Leviticus 12]

“This is the law of the woman who gives birth,” teaches that she brings one offering for many offspring.

And she is not liable for an offering for the birth of each male and for each birth of a female.

One might have thought that she should bring

one offering

for childbirth and for a flux, together?

And the Gemara is astonished at the initial assumption:

Rather,

according to your words,

a woman who gave birth who ate blood, and a woman who gave birth who ate forbidden fat,

does

one offering suffice for her?

Is it possible to say that a woman who gives birth can suffice for any two obligations of an offering by bringing one offering?

Rather

the tanna said as follows:

One might have thought that she should bring

one offering

for a birth before the completion

of the days of purity

and for a birth after the completion

of the days of purity,

together?

The verse therefore says, “This.”

Only when the second birth occurred within the days of purity of the first birth does she fulfill her obligation with one offering; but not when the second birth occurred after the completion of the days of purity of the first birth.

And the Sages,

what do they learn from “This”?

Even though “This” is written, it is also necessary

as well

“For a male or for a female.”

For

it might enter your mind to say, these words

that she must bring a separate offering for every birth after the completion of the days of purity

apply in two conceptions.

She gave birth, and after the completion, before she managed to bring an offering, she again conceived and gave birth to another offspring.

But in one conception, such as Judah and Hezekiah, the sons of Rabbi Hiyya,

who were twins, except that one was delayed in exiting three months after the other, and the seven days of impurity and thirty-three days of purity of the first had already ended before the birth of the second,

say that one offering suffices for her; it teaches us otherwise.

Rabbi Yohanan said: And Rabbi Shimon concedes regarding sacrificial animals

that an offspring of an exceptional exit among sacrificial animals

is not sacred

with bodily sanctity, but only with monetary sanctity. For the bodily sanctity that takes effect upon the offspring of an offering at the time of its birth can take effect only through an ordinary birth, but not through the birth of an exceptional exit.

What is the reason? He derives “birth, birth”

by a gzera shava

from the firstborn. Just as there, the one that opens the womb,

only birth through the womb is considered birth, whereas the birth of an “exceptional exit” is not considered birth that sanctifies the firstborn with the sanctity of the firstborn,

so too here,

with regard to the application of bodily sanctity to the offspring of sacrificial animals, only the birth of

one that opens the womb

is considered birth.

The Gemara asks:

And let

Rabbi Shimon

derive “birth, birth” from man. Just as there, an exceptional exit

is considered birth with regard to days of impurity and purity and an offering

, so too here, an exceptional exit

is considered birth with regard to sacrificial animals!

And the Gemara answers:

It is reasonable that he should learn it from the firstborn, for

it is written regarding sacrificial animals, “And it shall be seven days under

its mother”.

And they learn

from

the firstborn, concerning which it is stated, “For seven days it shall be with

its mother.”

And the Gemara challenges:

On the contrary, he should have learned it from man, for it is simple from simple!

Sacrificial animals and man are more similar, because their laws apply also to an ordinary offspring and not only to a firstborn, whereas the firstborn applies specifically to a firstborn offspring and does not apply to an ordinary offspring like sacrificial animals!?

And the Gemara answers:

Rather,

therefore, the offspring of sacrificial animals that is an exceptional exit

should have been learned from the firstborn, for

there are several reasons that sacrificial animals are more similar to the firstborn:

A. A gzera shava

“mother,”

for “its mother” is stated in the verse concerning both of them.

B. Both of them are

sacrificial animals.

C. D. E. In both of them the law of

pigul, notar, and impure applies.

The Gemara challenges:

On the contrary, he should have learned it from man, for

there are several reasons that sacrificial animals are similar to man:

A. Both are

ordinary,

and not specifically firstborn.

b. In both of them there is no law of

male

specifically [unlike a firstborn, which applies only to males].

c. In both of them it is not

consecrated

automatically [whereas a firstborn is consecrated automatically from the womb].

d. In both of them they are not given

as a gift

to a kohen [as opposed to the firstborn, which is one of the gifts of the priesthood].

And we answer:

these,

the matters in which consecrated offerings resemble a firstborn,

are more numerous,

they are more numerous than the matters in which consecrated offerings resemble a person. For consecrated offerings resemble a firstborn in five ways, but a person only in four ways. Therefore Rabbi Shimon derives the law of consecrated offerings from that of a firstborn, that one born by an unusual delivery is considered a birth.

Rav Hiyya, son of Rav Huna, said in the name of Rava: A beraita was taught that supports Rabbi Yohanan, who said: Rabbi Shimon concedes concerning one born by an unusual delivery in the case of consecrated offerings.

For it was taught:

Rabbi Judah says,

as it is written,

“This is the law of the burnt offering; it is the burnt offering

upon its fire on the altar all night,” from this verse we derive below that all disqualified consecrated offerings that ascended upon the altar shall not descend from it again; rather, they shall burn them upon the altar.

And this is how they expound the verse: “It is the burnt offering”: once it has ascended upon its fire, even if disqualified, it shall remain there burning all night! And Rabbi Judah excluded three disqualifications from this rule, because three exclusions were stated in the passage:

a. “This,” and not another!

b. “It,” it is an exclusion!

c. “The burnt offering,” with the definite article, which implies: the particular fit burnt offering, but not the disqualified one.

These are three exclusions

that exclude these three disqualifications, so that even if they ascended upon the altar, they shall descend from it: