Niddah 41a (מא.) — the Talmud in English

Once the verse has included some cases and excluded others,

from this point onward one must follow the assessment of the matter. Therefore,

you said: I include these

because

their disqualification occurred in the Sanctuary,

as they became disqualified after they had entered the Temple courtyard.

And I exclude these,

because

their disqualification did not occur in the Sanctuary,

as the disqualification may occur before they enter the Temple courtyard.

The Gemara returns to cite proof for the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that Rabbi Shimon concedes that an offspring delivered by caesarean section in the context of sacrificial animals is not considered a birth and therefore does not become sacred:

In any event, it teaches

among all the disqualified animals listed in the beraita

“an offspring delivered by caesarean section,” which may not be offered

even if it ascended the altar.

What, is it not referring to an offspring delivered by caesarean section among sacrificial animals,

and Rabbi Shimon is saying that even if it ascended, it must descend? This indicates in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that Rabbi Shimon concedes that an offspring delivered by caesarean section is disqualified among sacrificial animals.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said: No.

The beraita is not discussing an offspring delivered by caesarean section among sacrificial animals, but rather

an offspring delivered by caesarean section among firstborn animals,

with regard to which everyone agrees that sanctity does not apply to it, since the Merciful One states: “that which opens the womb.”

The Gemara rejects this: An offspring delivered by caesarean section that is a

firstborn,

it is

derived from “that which opens the womb,”

which teaches that no sanctity applies to it at all. It is obvious that if it ascended, it must descend, and there is no need to derive this from the verse!

The Gemara raises the opposite difficulty:

Rather, what

will you say—that the beraita is discussing an offspring delivered by caesarean section

among sacrificial animals?

If so, it is difficult, for by means of a

gezerah shavah from “its mother, its mother,”

it is derived that it does not become sacred at all.

The Gemara rejects this:

What is this?

How, then, shall we interpret the beraita?

It works out well if you say

that it is discussing an offspring delivered by caesarean section

among sacrificial animals; that is why two verses are necessary,

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

One

verse is

for a non-sacred animal that was delivered by caesarean section and was consecrated

after its birth, teaching that sanctity does not apply to it at all.

And one

verse is

for a sacrificial animal that was delivered by caesarean section,

teaching that although sanctity did apply to it, nevertheless, if it ascended the altar, it must descend.

And he holds that

Rabbi Shimon:

the offspring of sacrificial animals, at the moment of their formation,

that is, only when they emerge from their mothers’ wombs,

become sacred.

Therefore, the sanctity and the disqualification of an offspring delivered by caesarean section take effect upon it simultaneously.

But if you say

that it is discussing an offspring delivered by caesarean section

that is a firstborn,

then

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

so why are two verses necessary?

Therefore, it is proven that the verse “this” is discussing an offspring delivered by caesarean section among sacrificial animals, and not an offspring delivered by caesarean section that is a firstborn. This provides proof for the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to an offspring delivered by caesarean section among sacrificial animals.

So too, it is reasonable

that the discussion concerns an offspring delivered by caesarean section among sacrificial animals, and that two verses are necessary, similar to the other disqualified animals mentioned in the beraita, which likewise are sacrificial animals that became disqualified while they were already sacred.

As it teaches: “An animal that mated, one that was mated with, one set aside for idolatry, one worshipped, and a mixed-breed animal.”

And seemingly one might ask: Are

these

disqualifications

derived from here,

from the fact that it is written “this”?

Are they derived from here?

But

they are derived from there,

from what is written:

“From the animal,” to exclude an animal that mated and one that was mated with.

“From the cattle,” to exclude an animal that was worshipped.

“From the flock,” to exclude an animal set aside for idolatry. “And from the flock,” to exclude an ox that gored

a person.

And furthermore,

there is a difficulty: Is it possible that

a mixed-breed animal is derived from here,

from “this,”

is it derived?

But

it is derived from there,

from what is written:

“An ox, or a sheep, or a goat.”

And we derive:

“An ox” excludes a mixed-breed animal,

excluding one born from a crossbreed of a goat and a sheep.

“Or a goat” excludes an animal of a different appearance,

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

And since we have learned from these derivations that they do not become sacred at all with the sanctity of a sacrifice, what need is there to exclude them by means of “this,” teaching that even if they ascended they must descend? It is obvious that they must descend, since they are not sacred at all!?

Rather,

necessarily, the fact that

two verses are necessary,

that is, the additional derivation from “this” in the beraita, besides the other derivations, comes to teach:

One:

the other derivations are

for a non-sacred animal,

to exclude the very consecration of the animal as a sacrifice, since sanctity does not apply to it at all because of the disqualification.

And one is for a sacrificial animal,

which was already sacred and became disqualified through these disqualifications, but whose sanctity was not removed. Therefore, an additional verse is necessary to teach us that even if it ascended, it must descend.

And if so,

here too,

with regard to the disqualification of an offspring delivered by caesarean section, which the beraita explains as being derived from the exclusion of “this,”

two verses are necessary.

One is for an offspring delivered by caesarean section that was born from a non-sacred animal that was subsequently consecrated, and one is for an offspring delivered by caesarean section that was born from a sacrificial animal and was born sacred.

And since Rabbi Shimon in the beraita must necessarily have been discussing an offspring delivered by caesarean section among sacrificial animals, we have proof for the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that Rabbi Shimon concedes that an offspring delivered by caesarean section is disqualified among sacrificial animals.

The Sages taught:

A woman

experiencing labor

to give birth, and who saw blood as a result of the sensation of the pain of childbirth [a woman who sees blood because of the pain of childbirth is called one who has seen dam kishui, “blood of labor,” and it does not render her impure as dam ziva, the blood of a zava], for

three days, and an offspring emerged by way of the side, she is a woman who gives birth as a zava.

That is, she has the status of an ordinary zava, because the Torah’s purification of blood that comes because of labor pains, so that the laws of a zava do not apply to it, applies specifically to blood emitted during a normal birth, and not to blood emitted during the birth of an offspring delivered by caesarean section, since this is not considered a birth with regard to her.

And Rabbi Shimon says:

an offspring delivered by caesarean section is a fully valid offspring. Therefore, this woman as well, who saw blood because of the pain of childbirth and gave birth through the side,

is not a woman who gives birth as a zava,

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

The beraita further adds:

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

as will be explained below.

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

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Granted, the first clause,

which discusses the status of blood of labor preceding the birth of an offspring delivered by caesarean section—Rabbi Shimon properly deems it pure

Rabbi Shimon,

because he follows

his own reasoning,

as he considers an offspring delivered by caesarean section a fully valid offspring.

But the Rabbis

deem it impure because they follow

their own reasoning,

that it is not a normal offspring.

But as for the latter clause,

which discusses the blood that emerges at the time of the birth itself,

over what do they disagree?

Indeed, to the contrary: Rabbi Shimon, who considers an offspring delivered by caesarean section a fully valid offspring, should have rendered the blood impure, as is the law concerning ordinary blood of childbirth. And the Rabbis, who maintain that this is not a birth, should have deemed it pure, as is the law concerning blood from a wound!?

The Gemara answers:

Ravina said: It is referring to a case where the offspring itself emerged

itself

through the side.