Niddah 81

Chapter 81

א אחר שריבה הכתוב ומיעט אמרת מרבה אני את אלו שהיה פסולן בקדש ומוציא אני את אלו שלא היה פסולן בקדש

1 Since Scripture both widened and limited the scope of the law, you might rightly say:1 I include the former whose disqualification arose within the Sanctuary and exclude the latter whose disqualification did not arise within the Sanctuary.2 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;3

ב קתני מיהת יוצא דופן דלא מאי לאו יוצא דופן דקדשים אמר רב הונא בריה דרב נתן לא יוצא דופן דבכור

2 and this refers, does it not, to the young that were so extracted in the case of a consecrated beast?4 — 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 firstling5 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

ג בכור מפטר רחם נפקא

3 What then do you suggest? That the reference is to one of the consecrated beasts? Is not7

ד אלא מאי דקדשים מאמו אמו נפקא

4 this [it could be retorted] inferred from a deduction of 'the dam' from 'the dam'?8 — What a comparison!9

ה האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא דקדשים היינו דאצריכי תרי קראי חד לבהמת חולין דאוליד דרך דופן ואקדשה

5 If you grant that the reference is to a consecrated beast one can well understand the necessity for two Scriptural texts:10

ו וחד לבהמת קדשים דאוליד דרך דופן וקסבר ולדות קדשים בהוייתן הן קדושים אלא אי אמרת דבכור מפטר רחם נפקא

6 One11

ז הכי נמי מסתברא מדקתני הרובע והנרבע והמוקצה והנעבד והכלאים

7 to exclude12

ח הני מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא (ויקרא א, ב) מן הבהמה להוציא הרובע והנרבע מן הבקר להוציא את הנעבד מן הצאן להוציא את המוקצה ומן הצאן להוציא את הנוגח

8 the young of an unconsecrated beast born by way of a caesarean cut and then consecrated, and the other,13 to exclude14 the young of a consecrated beast15 born by way of the caesarean cut,16 he being of the opinion that the young of consecrated beasts become sacred only after they come into a visible existence,17

ט ותו כלאים מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא (ויקרא כב, כז) שור או כשב או עז שור פרט לכלאים או עז פרט לנדמה

9 but if you maintain that the reference is to a firstling [the objection would arise:] Is not this18 deduced from the expression openeth the womb?19 This20

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

10 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.21 Now is the law concerning these deduced from this text?22

יא ת"ר המקשה שלשה ימים ויצא ולד דרך דופן הרי זו יולדת בזוב ורבי שמעון אומר אין זו יולדת בזוב ודם היוצא משם טמא ורבי שמעון מטהר

11 Is it not in fact deduced from a different text:22 Of the cattle23 excludes24 a beast that covered or was covered, Of the herd23

יב בשלמא רישא רבי שמעון לטעמיה ורבנן לטעמייהו אלא סיפא במאי פליגי אמר רבינא כגון שיצא ולד דרך דופן

12 excludes24 a beast that was worshipped, Of the flock23 excludes24 one that was set aside for an idolatrous purpose, Or of the flock23 excludes25 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 And, furthermore, is the law concerning kil'ayim27 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;28 'a bullock' excludes kil'ayim, 'or a goat' excludes one that29 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 But the fact is that two series of texts were required there: One in connection with an unconsecrated beast31 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 labour32 for three days,33 but the embryo was born by way of a caesarean cut, she is to be regarded as having given birth in zibah.<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 R. Simeon, however,35 ruled: A woman in such circumstances is not regarded as36 having given birth in zibah. The blood, furthermore, that issues from that place37 is unclean, but R. Simeon declared it clean. The first clause may be well understood, since R. Simeon follows his known view38 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 — Rabina replied: This is a case where, for instance, the embryo was born through the side

Previous Chapter Next Chapter