Niddah 41a — the Talmud in English

After Scripture increased in one respect and decreased in another,

from now on it is necessary to follow the assessment of reason. And therefore,

you said: I include these

because of

their disqualification being in the sacred sphere,

for they became disqualified after they had come into the Courtyard.

And I exclude these,

because of

their disqualification not being in the sacred sphere,

for the disqualification can occur before they came into the Courtyard.

And the Gemara returns to bring proof for the words of Rabbi Yohanan, that Rabbi Shimon concedes that an animal born by yotzei dofen in consecrated matters is not considered a birth, and therefore it is not sacred:

In any event, it teaches,

among all the disqualified animals in the beraita,

“an animal born by yotzei dofen, which is not”

to be offered even if it went up onto the altar.

What, is it not an animal born by yotzei dofen in consecrated matters,

and Rabbi Shimon says that even if it went up, it must come down? And it follows in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yohanan, that Rabbi Shimon concedes that an animal born by yotzei dofen is disqualified in consecrated matters.

Rav Huna son of Rav Natan said: No.

The beraita is not speaking of an animal born by yotzei dofen in consecrated matters, but of an

animal born by yotzei dofen that is a firstborn,

concerning which everyone concedes that sacred status does not take effect upon it, because the Merciful One stated: “that which opens the womb.”

And the Gemara rejects this: An animal born by yotzei dofen that is

a firstborn—

behold,

it is derived from “that which opens the womb”

that it has no sacred status at all; and it is obvious that if it went up, it must come down, and you do not need to learn this from the verse!

But the Gemara raises the opposite difficulty:

Rather, what

will you say—that the beraita is speaking of an animal born by yotzei dofen

in consecrated matters?

If so, the difficulty is: Behold, by means of a gezerah shavah

it is derived from “its mother, its mother”

that it does not become sacred at all.

And the Gemara rejects this:

What is this?

If so, how shall we interpret the beraita?

Granted, if you say

that it is speaking of an animal born by yotzei dofen

in consecrated matters, this is why two verses are needed,

both “its mother, its mother” and “this.”

One

verse

for an ordinary animal that was born through the side and was consecrated

after birth: sacred status did not take effect upon it at all.

And one

verse

for a consecrated animal that was born through the side.

For although sacred status took effect upon it, nevertheless, if it went up onto the altar, it must come down.

And he holds

Rabbi Shimon:

the offspring of consecrated animals, at the time of their coming into being,

only upon their emerging from the womb of their mother,

are sacred.

And therefore sacred status and the disqualification of yotzei dofen take effect upon it simultaneously.

But if you say

that it is speaking of an animal born by yotzei dofen

that is a firstborn,

behold,

it is derived from “that which opens the womb,”

so why are two verses needed?

And therefore it is proven that the verse “this” speaks of an animal born by yotzei dofen among consecrated animals, and not of an animal born by yotzei dofen that is a firstborn. And there is proof for the words of Rabbi Yohanan, that Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to an animal born by yotzei dofen among consecrated animals.

This too is reasonable,

that the discussion concerns an animal born by yotzei dofen among consecrated animals, and two verses are needed, analogous to the other disqualified animals mentioned in the beraita, which too are consecrated animals in which the disqualification occurred while they were sacred.

Since it teaches: An animal that has been mated with a person, an animal that has been used for intercourse, an animal set aside, an animal worshipped, and a hybrid.

And seemingly the difficulty is: Are

these

disqualified animals

derived from here,

from that which is written “this,”

[or are they] derived?

But surely

they are derived from there,

from that which is written

“from the animal,” to exclude an animal that has been mated with a person and an animal that has been used for intercourse.

“From the cattle,” to exclude the worshipped animal.

“From the flock,” to exclude the animal set aside. And “from the flock,” to exclude the goring animal,

that killed a person.

And furthermore

there is a difficulty: Is

a hybrid derived from here,

from “this,”

[or is it] derived,

but surely

it is derived from there,

as it is written

“an ox, or a sheep, or a goat.”

And we expound:

“An ox”—excluding a hybrid,

to exclude one born from a hybrid of a goat and a sheep.

“Or a goat”—excluding a look-alike,

whose parents are goats, but it itself was born resembling a sheep.

And since we learned from these derivations that they do not become sacred at all with the sacred status of an offering, what need is there to exclude them from “this,” that even if they went up, they must come down? Behold, it is obvious that they must come down, since they are not sacred at all!?

Rather,

necessarily, this that

two verses were needed,

that is, the additional derivation of “this” in the beraita, besides the other derivations, is to say:

One,

the other derivations,

for an ordinary animal,

to exclude the very consecration of it as an offering, for sacred status did not take effect upon it at all because of the disqualification.

And one, for a consecrated animal,

which was already sacred and became disqualified through these disqualifications, but its sacred status was not removed; therefore an additional verse is needed to teach us that even if it went up, it must come down.

And if so,

here too,

with regard to the disqualification of yotzei dofen, which is explained in the beraita as being learned from the exclusion of “this,”

two verses were needed.

One for an animal born by yotzei dofen from an ordinary animal that they consecrated, and one for an animal born by yotzei dofen from a consecrated animal, and which was born sacred.

And since necessarily Rabbi Shimon in the beraita was speaking of an animal born by yotzei dofen among consecrated animals, we have proof for the words of Rabbi Yohanan, that Rabbi Shimon concedes that an animal born by yotzei dofen is disqualified among consecrated animals.

The Sages taught:

A woman

in labor

to give birth, and she saw blood through the sensation of the pain of childbirth [and a woman who sees blood because of the pain of childbirth—the blood is called “blood of labor,” and it does not render impure as the blood of a woman with a flux], for

three days, and the offspring emerged through the side, she is a woman who gives birth in a flux.

That is, she has the status of an ordinary woman with a flux, because that which the Torah rendered pure—blood that comes because of the pain of labor, so that the law of a woman with a flux does not apply to it—is specifically blood that emerges in an ordinary birth, and not in a birth by yotzei dofen, since she does not have the status of a birth.

And Rabbi Shimon says:

An offspring born by yotzei dofen is a fully valid offspring. Therefore, this woman too, who saw blood through the pain of childbirth and gave birth through the side,

is not a woman who gives birth in a flux,

but her status is like that of a woman who gives birth ordinarily, and the blood of her labor is pure.

And the beraita further adds:

And the blood that emerges from there is impure. And Rabbi Shimon declares it pure

[as will be explained below].

And the Gemara assumed that “the blood that emerges from there” refers to the blood of childbirth that emerges through the side, from the place of the incision through which the offspring emerges.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

Granted, the first clause,

which deals with the law of the blood of labor before the birth by yotzei dofen—it is well that

Rabbi Shimon

declares it pure, because he proceeds

according to his reasoning,

that he considers an offspring born by yotzei dofen a fully valid offspring.

And the Rabbis

declare it impure because they proceed

according to their reasoning,

that it is not an ordinary offspring.

But the latter clause,

which deals with the blood that emerges at the time of the birth itself,

over what do they disagree?

[On the contrary, Rabbi Shimon, who considers an offspring born by yotzei dofen a fully valid offspring, should have declared the blood impure, according to the law of ordinary birth blood. And the Rabbis, who hold that this is not a birth, should have declared it pure, according to the law of blood from a wound]!?

The Gemara answers:

Ravina said: [It is] a case where the offspring itself emerged

itself

through the side.