Mesorat%20hashas for Niddah 81:29

כגון שיצא ולד דרך דופן

excludes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Of' implying a limitation. ');">²⁴</span> one that was set aside for an idolatrous purpose, Or of the flock<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 2. ');">²³</span> excludes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the use of the redundant 'or'. ');">²⁵</span> one that gores?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And killed a human being. The last three classes (covered, was covered and gores) are such whose status was determined on the evidence of only one witness or their owner. Hence they are only forbidden as sacrifices but permitted for ordinary use; but if their status is determined on the evidence of two witnesses they are forbidden for ordinary use also. ');">²⁶</span> And, furthermore, is the law concerning kil'ayim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In beasts; a cross-breed between a goat and a sheep. ');">²⁷</span> deduced from here? Is it not in fact deduced from a different text: When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 27. ');">²⁸</span> 'a bullock' excludes kil'ayim, 'or a goat' excludes one that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being born from a goat and having the appearance of a lamb. ');">²⁹</span> only resembles it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The goat. Now, since it follows from these texts that the beasts are not sacred, what need was there for an additional text from which to deduce that even though they have already been put upon the altar they must be taken down from it? ');">³⁰</span> But the fact is that two series of texts were required there: One in connection with an unconsecrated beast<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which a man consecrated. ');">³¹</span> and the other in connection with a consecrated beast; well then, in this case also two texts were similarly required. Our Rabbis taught: If a woman was in protracted labour<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accompanied by bleeding. ');">³²</span> for three days,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During her zibah period; the discharge having made its appearance on each of the three days. ');">³³</span> but the embryo was born by way of a caesarean cut, she is to be regarded as having given birth in <i>zibah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. she is subject to the restrictions of a confirmed or major zabah. Only in the case of normal birth is the blood during the labour preceding it exempt from the uncleanness of zibah. ');">³⁴</span> R. Simeon, however,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being of the opinion (v. our Mishnah) that such a birth is valid. ');">³⁵</span> ruled: A woman in such circumstances is not regarded as<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this is not'. ');">³⁶</span> having given birth in <i>zibah</i>. The blood, furthermore, that issues from that place<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained infra. ');">³⁷</span> is unclean, but R. Simeon declared it clean. The first clause may be well understood, since R. Simeon follows his known view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Expressed in our Mishnah (cf. prev. n. but two). ');">³⁸</span> and the Rabbis follow theirs; on what principle, however, do they differ in the final clause?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the blood issued through the caesarean cut the opinions should have been reversed: According to R. Simeon, who regards the birth as valid, the blood should be unclean while according to the Rabbis it should be clean. ');">³⁹</span> — Rabina replied: This is a case where, for instance, the embryo was born through the side

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Niddah 81:29. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.