Niddah 81

אחר שריבה הכתוב ומיעט

Since Scripture both widened and limited the scope of the law, you might rightly say:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By recourse to a process of reasoning. ');">¹</span>

אמרת

I include the former whose disqualification arose within the Sanctuary and exclude the latter whose disqualification did not arise within the Sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Zeb. 27b. ');">²</span>

מרבה אני את אלו שהיה פסולן בקדש ומוציא אני את אלו שלא היה פסולן בקדש

At all events, it was here taught that the young extracted by means of a caesarean operation is not included in the scope of the law;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it is obviously not regarded as sacred. ');">³</span>

קתני מיהת יוצא דופן דלא מאי לאו יוצא דופן דקדשים

and this refers, does it not, to the young that were so extracted in the case of a consecrated beast?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In agreement with R. Johanan's interpretation of R. Simeon s view. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב נתן

— R. Huna son of R. Nathan replied: No, the reference is to one so extracted in the case of a firstling. But is not the law of the firstling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that a firstling extracted by means of a caesarean cut is not subject to the restrictions and sanctity of a firstling. ');">⁵</span>

לא יוצא דופן דבכור

deduced from the expression of openeth the womb.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXIV, 19; emphasis on the last word. Now since it is not sacred it is obviously to be treated like an ordinary beast and must be removed from the altar even after it had been placed upon it; what need then was there to exclude it by the text of Lev. VI, 2. ');">⁶</span>

בכור מפטר רחם נפקא

What then do you suggest? That the reference is to one of the consecrated beasts? Is not<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the one so extracted is not sacred. ');">⁷</span>

אלא מאי דקדשים

this [it could be retorted] inferred from a deduction of 'the dam' from 'the dam'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 40a ad fin. ');">⁸</span>

מאמו אמו נפקא

— What a comparison!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that, what'. ');">⁹</span>

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא דקדשים היינו דאצריכי תרי קראי חד לבהמת חולין דאוליד דרך דופן ואקדשה וחד לבהמת קדשים דאוליד דרך דופן וקסבר ולדות קדשים בהוייתן הן קדושים

If you grant that the reference is to a consecrated beast one can well understand the necessity for two Scriptural texts:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'This' and 'the dam'. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא אי אמרת דבכור מפטר רחם נפקא

One<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The dam'. ');">¹¹</span>

הכי נמי מסתברא מדקתני הרובע והנרבע והמוקצה והנעבד והכלאים הני מהכא נפקא

to exclude<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From sanctity, in consequence of which it must be removed from the altar even after it had been placed on it. ');">¹²</span>

מהתם נפקא

the young of an unconsecrated beast born by way of a caesarean cut and then consecrated, and the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'This'. ');">¹³</span>

(ויקרא א, ב) מן הבהמה להוציא הרובע והנרבע

to exclude<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the law that requires a sacrifice that was once upon the altar never to be taken down. ');">¹⁴</span>

מן הבקר להוציא את הנעבד

the young of a consecrated beast<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the dam is sacred. ');">¹⁵</span>

מן הצאן להוציא את המוקצה

born by way of the caesarean cut,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the disqualification arose without the Sanctuary. ');">¹⁶</span>

ומן הצאן להוציא את הנוגח

he being of the opinion that the young of consecrated beasts become sacred only after they come into a visible existence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. on being born, but no earlier; and when the young was born it was already disqualified. Rashi deletes 'he being&nbsp;… existence'. ');">¹⁷</span>

ותו כלאים מהכא נפקא

but if you maintain that the reference is to a firstling [the objection would arise:] Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 281, n. 8. ');">¹⁸</span>

מהתם נפקא (ויקרא כב, כז) שור או כשב או עז

deduced from the expression openeth the womb?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course it is. Hence the conclusion that the reference must be to a consecrated beast. ');">¹⁹</span>

שור פרט לכלאים או עז פרט לנדמה

This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That all the disqualifications enumerated supra, including the young born by way of the caesarean cut, apply only to consecrated beasts and to their young. ');">²⁰</span>

אלא

may also be supported by reason. For 'a beast that covered or was covered, that was set aside for an idolatrous purpose, that was worshipped and kil'ayim' were mentioned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 40b. ');">²¹</span>

אצטריכו תרי קראי חד לבהמת חולין וחד לבהמת קדשים הכא נמי איצטריך תרי קראי

Now is the law concerning these deduced from this text?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from there'. ');">²²</span>

ת"ר

Is it not in fact deduced from a different text:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from there'. ');">²²</span>

המקשה שלשה ימים ויצא ולד דרך דופן הרי זו יולדת בזוב ורבי שמעון אומר

Of the cattle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 2. ');">²³</span>

אין זו יולדת בזוב

excludes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Of' implying a limitation. ');">²⁴</span>

ודם היוצא משם טמא ורבי שמעון מטהר

a beast that covered or was covered, Of the herd<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 2. ');">²³</span>

בשלמא רישא רבי שמעון לטעמיה ורבנן לטעמייהו אלא סיפא במאי פליגי

excludes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Of' implying a limitation. ');">²⁴</span>

אמר רבינא

a beast that was worshipped, Of the flock<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 2. ');">²³</span>

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