יט אמר רב חייא בריה דרב הונא משמיה דרבא תניא דמסייע ליה לר' יוחנן ר' יהודה אומר (ויקרא ו, ב) זאת תורת העולה היא העולה הרי אלו ג' מיעוטין
19 — He deduced it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> from the following which a Tanna recited before R. Shesheth: This is the law for her that beareth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 7. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> teaches<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since 'beareth' is not restricted to one child only. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> 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 <i>zibah</i> … 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a child is born after the completion of the eighty days (fourteen unclean and sixty-six clean ones) prescribed for the birth of a female child, the former was obviously born 'before their completion'. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> Therefore it was expressly written, 'This'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 7, implying, This birth alone requires a sacrifice, but an additional birth requires an additional sacrifice. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In view of this text what need was there for that of Lev. XII, 6? ');"><sup>40</sup></span> — Although 'this'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra note 2. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> was written it was also necessary to have the text, 'For a son or for a daughter'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 6. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> For it might have been presumed that this law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one birth 'before the completion' of the eighty days and one 'after their completion' require two separate sacrifices. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> applies only to two distinct conceptions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second one having begun during the eighty days that followed the first, and its birth having occurred after the completion of these days. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Rashal. Cur. edd. in parenthesis insert: 'One of which was an abortion'. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> that in the case of a simultaneous conception as, for instance, that of Judah and Hezekiah the sons of R. Hiyya,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second of whom was born three months after the former (supra 27a). ');"><sup>46</sup></span> one sacrifice suffices,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'with one sacrifice it is sufficient for her'. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like other beasts whose blemish preceded their consecration, its value only is consecrated. It may, therefore, be sold, when it loses its sanctity and may be used for shearing or work, while its price is used for the purchase of valid sacrifices. ');"><sup>48</sup></span> What is the reason? He deduces the expression of 'birth' here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is born (E.V. brought forth) in the context dealing with consecrated beasts (Lev. XXII, 27). ');"><sup>49</sup></span> from that of 'birth' in the case of the firstling:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All the firstling males that are born (Deut. XV, 19). ');"><sup>50</sup></span> As in the latter case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there'. ');"><sup>51</sup></span> the reference is to one that openeth the womb<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXIV, 19. ');"><sup>52</sup></span> so here also it is only to one that 'openeth the womb'. But why should not the expression of 'birth' here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is born (E.V. brought forth) in the context dealing with consecrated beasts (Lev. XXII, 27). ');"><sup>49</sup></span> be deduced from that of 'birth' in the case of a human being:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a woman be delivered and bear a man-child (Lev. XII, 2). ');"><sup>53</sup></span> As in the latter case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there'. ');"><sup>54</sup></span> a foetus extracted from its mother's side is included<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As R. Simeon laid down in our Mishnah. ');"><sup>55</sup></span> 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'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It shall be seven days under the dam (Lev. XXII, 27) about consecrated beasts. ');"><sup>56</sup></span> might also be deduced from 'the dam'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It shall be with its dam (Ex. XXII, 29) about the firstling. ');"><sup>57</sup></span> On the contrary! Should not the deduction be made from the expression used of the human being, since thereby an ordinary birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a beast that is not a firstling. ');"><sup>58</sup></span> would be deduced from an ordinary birth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a child that is not a firstborn son, the text (Lev. XII, 2) speaking of any child whether a firstborn or not. ');"><sup>59</sup></span> But the fact is that the deduction was properly to be made from the firstling since in both cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The consecrated beast and the firstling. ');"><sup>60</sup></span> the expression 'dam'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra nn. 3 and 4. ');"><sup>61</sup></span> is used, both are sacred beasts and both are subject to the laws of piggul, nothar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On these terms v. Glos. ');"><sup>62</sup></span> and uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To a human being none of these applies. ');"><sup>63</sup></span> On the contrary! Should not the deduction be made from the expression used of the human being since both cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those of the child and the consecrated beast. ');"><sup>64</sup></span> are those of ordinary birth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra nn. 5 and 6. ');"><sup>65</sup></span> neither is restricted to the male sex,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While only a male is subject to the law of a firstling. ');"><sup>66</sup></span> neither<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unlike the firstling that is sacred from birth. ');"><sup>67</sup></span> is naturally sacred,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The consecration of the beast is entirely due to a human act. ');"><sup>68</sup></span> and neither<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unlike the firstling which is the priest's due. ');"><sup>69</sup></span> is a priestly gift?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A peace-offering, for instance, remains the property of its owner. A burnt-offering is completely burnt on the altar. ');"><sup>70</sup></span> The former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The five points of likeness between the consecrated beast and the firstling. ');"><sup>71</sup></span> are more in number.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Than the four points of likeness between the beast and a human being. ');"><sup>72</sup></span> R. Hiyya son of R. Huna citing Raba observed, A Baraitha was taught which provides support for the statement of R. Johanan:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra, that R. Simeon agrees in the case of consecrated beasts that the body of the young extracted from one by means of a caesarean cut is not sacred. ');"><sup>73</sup></span> R. Judah stated, This is the law of the burnt-offering, it is that which goeth up,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 2. ');"><sup>74</sup></span> behold these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expressions, 'this', 'it', 'which goes up'. ');"><sup>75</sup></span> are three limitations