## Niddah Daf 40a

###### Niddah 40a:1
[Niddah 40a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:1)

מַתְנִי' **יוֹצֵא** דּוֹפֶן — אֵין יוֹשְׁבִין עָלָיו יְמֵי טוּמְאָה וִימֵי טׇהֳרָה, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו קׇרְבָּן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זֶה כְּיָלוּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** After the birth of an offspring by **caesarean section,** the mother **does not observe** seven or fourteen **days of impurity and** thirty-three or sixty-six **days of purity for** male and female offspring, respectively, **and she is not obligated to** bring **for it** the **offering** brought by a woman after childbirth. **Rabbi Shimon says:** The halakhic status of **that** offspring is **like** that of an offspring **born** in a standard birth.


###### Niddah 40a:2
[Niddah 40a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:2)

כׇּל הַנָּשִׁים מְטַמְּאוֹת בַּבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״דָּם יִהְיֶה זוֹבָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״, אֲבָל הַזָּב וּבַעַל קֶרִי אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין, עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא טוּמְאָתָן לַחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**All women become ritually impure** with the flow of blood from the uterus **into the outer chamber,** i.e., the vagina, although it did not leave the woman’s body, **as it is stated: “And her issue in her flesh shall be blood,** she shall be in her menstruation seven days” (Leviticus 15:19), indicating that even if her menstrual blood remains in her flesh, she becomes impure. **But one who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [*zav*] and one who experiences a seminal emission do not become ritually impure until their** emission of **impurity emerges outside** the body.


###### Niddah 40a:3
[Niddah 40a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:3)

הָיָה אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה, וְהִרְגִּישׁ שֶׁנִּזְדַּעְזְעוּ אֵבָרָיו — אוֹחֵז בָּאַמָּה וּבוֹלֵעַ אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה, וּמְטַמְּאִין בְּכֹל שֶׁהוּא, אֲפִילּוּ כְּעֵין הַחַרְדָּל, וּבְפָחוֹת מִכֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If a priest **was partaking of *teruma*,** the portion of the produce designated for the priest, **and sensed a quaking of his limbs** indicating that a seminal emission was imminent, he should firmly **hold** his **penis** to prevent the emission from leaving his body, **and swallow the *teruma*** while ritually pure. **And** the emission of a *zav* and a seminal emission **impart impurity in any amount, even like** the size of **a mustard seed or** even **smaller than that.**


###### Niddah 40a:4
[Niddah 40a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:4)

**גְּמָ'** אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי בַּר פַּטִּישׁ: מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? אָמַר קְרָא ״אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר״ — עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא מַזְרַעַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna cites a dispute as to whether or not a birth by caesarean section is considered a birth with regard to the *halakhot* pertaining to childbirth. **Rabbi Mani bar Patish said: What is the reason** for the opinion **of the Rabbis,** who say that it is not considered a birth? It is because **the verse states: “If a woman emitted seed and gave birth to a male,** then she shall be impure seven days…And when the days of her purification are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering” (Leviticus 12:2–6). It is derived from here that the *halakhot* mentioned in that passage do not apply **unless she gives birth through the place where she emits seed.**


###### Niddah 40a:5
[Niddah 40a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:5)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? הָהִיא — דַּאֲפִילּוּ לֹא יָלְדָה אֶלָּא כְּעֵין שֶׁהִזְרִיעָה, אִמּוֹ טְמֵאָה לֵידָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how does **Rabbi Shimon** interpret the term “emitted seed”? The Gemara answers: **That** word serves to teach **that even** if **she gave birth only** to a fluid that **resembles the seed that she emitted,** i.e., the fetus died and entirely decomposed and dissolved before emerging, **its mother is ritually impure** due to **childbirth.**


###### Niddah 40a:6
[Niddah 40a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:6)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אָמַר קְרָא ״תֵּלֵד״ — לְרַבּוֹת יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **And Rabbi Shimon, what is** the **reason** for **his** opinion that the *halakhot* of childbirth apply in the case of a caesarean section? **Reish Lakish said** that it is because the **verse states:** “But if **she gives birth** to a female” (Leviticus 12:5). The term “she gives birth” is superfluous in the context of the passage, as it was mentioned previously, and it therefore serves **to include** the birth of an offspring by **caesarean section.**


###### Niddah 40a:7
[Niddah 40a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:7)

וְרַבָּנַן? הַאי מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹת טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, דְּסָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״זָכָר״ וּ״נְקֵבָה״ כְּתִיב — זָכָר וַדַּאי, נְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית, וְלֹא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** what do **the Rabbis** derive from this superfluous expression? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, **that** expression **is necessary to include** the birth of a child **whose sexual organs are indeterminate [*tumtum*] or a hermaphrodite. As** it might **enter your mind to say** that as the words **“male”** (Leviticus 12:2) **and “female”** (Leviticus 12:5) are **written** in the passage, these *halakhot* apply only to **a definite male** and **a definite female, but not** to **a *tumtum* or a hermaphrodite.** Therefore, the term “she gives birth” **teaches us** that it is the birth itself, not the sex of the offspring, that matters.


###### Niddah 40a:8
[Niddah 40a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:8)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּתָנֵי בַּר לֵיוַאי, דְּתָנֵי בַּר לֵיוַאי: ״לְבֵן״ — לְבֵן מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״לְבַת״ — לְבַת מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** from where does **Rabbi Shimon** derive that these *halakhot* apply to a *tumtum* and a hermaphrodite? The Gemara answers: **He derives it from** that **which bar Livai teaches, as bar Livai teaches** a *baraita* that discusses the verse: “And when the days of her purity are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter” (Leviticus 12:6). Since the verse uses the terms “son” and “daughter,” rather than male and female, it is derived from the term **“for a son”** that these *halakhot* apply **to a son in any case,** even if his masculinity is not definite. Similarly, the term **“for a daughter”** teaches that these *halakhot* apply **to a daughter in any case,** even if her femininity is not definite.


###### Niddah 40a:9
[Niddah 40a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:9)

וְרַבָּנַן? הַאי מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְחַיֵּיב עַל כׇּל בֵּן וּבֵן, וּלְחַיֵּיב עַל כׇּל בַּת וּבַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** what do **the Rabbis** derive from the terms “for a son” and “for a daughter”? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, **that** term **is necessary to obligate** the mother to bring an offering **for each and every son** to whom she gives birth, rather than one offering after having given birth to several sons; **and likewise to obligate** her to bring an offering **for each and every daughter** to whom she gives birth.


###### Niddah 40a:10
[Niddah 40a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:10)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּתָנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַיּוֹלֶדֶת״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמְּבִיאָה קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד עַל וְלָדוֹת הַרְבֵּה. יָכוֹל תָּבִיא עַל לֵידָה וְעַל זִיבָה כְּאֶחָת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** from where does **Rabbi Shimon** derive this *halakha*? The Gemara answers that **he derives it from** a *baraita* **that a *tanna* taught before Rav Sheshet:** The verse states: **“This is the law for one who gives birth,** whether to a male or a female” (Leviticus 12:7). This **teaches that** a woman **brings a single offering for many offspring** born within a short time, e.g., after a multiple birth. One **might** have thought that **she may bring** an offering **for** her **childbirth and** an offering **for** an irregular **discharge** of blood from the uterus [*ziva*], in a case where she is required to bring one, **as one,** i.e., that she may fulfill her two obligations with a single offering.


###### Niddah 40a:11
[Niddah 40a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:11)

אֶלָּא, יוֹלֶדֶת דְּאָכְלָה דָּם וְיוֹלֶדֶת דְּאָכְלָה חֵלֶב, בְּחַד קׇרְבָּן תִּסְגֵּי לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara interrupts the *baraita* to raise a difficulty: **But** how could it possibly enter your mind that a woman may bring one offering for two obligations? In the case of **a woman after childbirth who consumed blood, or a woman after childbirth who ate** forbidden **fat,** is **one offering sufficient for her?** One who eats blood or forbidden fat is obligated to bring a sin offering for atonement (see Leviticus 7:25–27). There is no reason to think that a woman after childbirth, who is required to bring a sin offering for a reason other than her childbirth, may bring one offering for both obligations. Similarly, there are no grounds for suggesting that a single offering might suffice for both childbirth and *ziva*.


###### Niddah 40a:12
[Niddah 40a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:12)

אֶלָּא, יָכוֹל תָּבִיא עַל לֵידָה שֶׁלִּפְנֵי מְלֹאת וְעַל לֵידָה שֶׁלְּאַחַר מְלֹאת כְּאַחַת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״זֹאת״. וְרַבָּנַן, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״זֹאת״, אִיצְטְרִיךְ ״לְבֵן אוֹ לְבַת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the statement of the *baraita* should be revised, as follows: One **might** have thought that a woman **may bring** an offering **for a childbirth that** occurred **before the completion** of her term of postpartum purity, **and for** a second **childbirth that** happened **after the completion** of that period, **as one,** i.e., she may fulfill her two obligations with a single offering. Therefore, **the verse states: “This** is the law for one who gives birth” (Leviticus 12:7), indicating that each birth, unless it occurred within the period of purity following another birth, requires its own offering. The Gemara asks: **And** how do **the Rabbis** respond to this derivation? The Gemara answers that in their opinion, **even though it is written: “This** is the law,” **it was** still **necessary** for the verse to state: **“For a son, or for a daughter.”**


###### Niddah 40a:13
[Niddah 40a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:13)

סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: בִּתְרֵי עִיבּוּרֵי (דְּחַד הָוֵי נֵפֶל), אֲבָל בְּחַד עִבּוּרָא, כְּגוֹן יְהוּדָה וְחִזְקִיָּה בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא, אֵימַר בְּחַד קׇרְבָּן סַגִּי לַהּ — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: Had the Torah stated only the verse: “This is the law,” it might **enter your mind to say** that one offering does not suffice for two births that occurred as a result **of two pregnancies,** as the second one was a miscarriage whose conception occurred during the woman’s period of purity following the first birth. **But** if both births occurred as a result **of one pregnancy, such as** in the case of **Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya,** the twin **sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya,** who were born three months apart (see 27a), **I would say that one offering** for both births is **sufficient for her.** Therefore, the verse “for a son, or for a daughter” **teaches us** otherwise.


###### Niddah 40a:14
[Niddah 40a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:14)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּקָדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ. מַאי טַעְמָא? גָּמַר ״לֵידָה״ ״לֵידָה״ מִבְּכוֹר — מָה הָתָם ״פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם״, אַף כָּאן ״פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And Rabbi Shimon,** who maintains that childbirth by caesarean section has the halakhic status of regular childbirth, **concedes in** the case of **consecrated** animals **that** if one attempts to consecrate an animal born by caesarean section, it **is not consecrated. What is the reason** for this opinion? **He derives** it by means of a verbal analogy **from** the word **birth** that is written with regard to consecrated animals (see Leviticus 22:27), and the word **birth** that is written in connection with a **firstborn** animal (see Deuteronomy 15:19). **Just as there,** in the case of the firstborn, the *halakhot* apply specifically to one who **“opens the womb”** (Exodus 13:15), **so too here,** in the case of consecrated animals, the *halakhot* apply only to one who **opens the womb.**


###### Niddah 40a:15
[Niddah 40a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:15)

וְלִגְמַר ״לֵידָה״ ״לֵידָה״ מֵאָדָם — מָה הָתָם יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, אַף כָּאן יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **And let** Rabbi Shimon **derive** a different conclusion by a similar verbal analogy, as the word **birth** is written with regard to consecrated animals, and the word **birth** is also written **with regard to a person,** i.e., a woman who gives birth (see Leviticus 12:2): **Just as there,** in the case of humans, childbirth by **caesarean section** has the status of childbirth according to Rabbi Shimon, **so too here,** in the case of consecrated animals, an animal born by **caesarean section** is considered the same as an animal born via a natural birth.


###### Niddah 40a:16
[Niddah 40a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:16)

מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִבְּכוֹר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן אִמּוֹ מֵ״אִמּוֹ״, אַדְּרַבָּה, מֵאָדָם הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן פָּשׁוּט מִפָּשׁוּט!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It **is** more **reasonable for** Rabbi Shimon **to derive** the *halakha* of a consecrated animal **from a firstborn** animal, rather than from the *halakha* of childbirth, **as** it is written with regard to a consecrated animal: **“Its mother”** (Leviticus 22:27), and it is likewise written **with regard to** a firstborn animal: **“Its mother”** (Exodus 22:29). The Gemara objects: **On the contrary, he should derive** it **from human** births, **as** that would be a derivation of the *halakha* concerning consecrated animals that are **ordinary,** i.e., not firstborns, **from** the *halakha* concerning human births of children that are **ordinary,** and not firstborns.


###### Niddah 40a:17
[Niddah 40a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:17)

אֶלָּא, מִבְּכוֹר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן אִם בֶּהֱמַת קָדָשִׁים, פִּגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adopts a different line of reasoning: **Rather,** Rabbi Shimon **should derive** it **from a firstborn** animal, **as** they both share the following five characteristics: In both cases it is written: “its **mother”;** both are cases of **a sacrificial animal;** both are subject to ***piggul*,** the disqualification of an offering through improper intent during its sacrificial rites; both are subject to ***notar*,** the disqualification of sacrificial meat after a prescribed time; **and** finally, both are subject to disqualification by becoming **ritually impure.** By contrast, humans do not share any of these characteristics.


###### Niddah 40a:18
[Niddah 40a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:18)

אַדְּרַבָּה, מֵאָדָם הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן פָּשׁוּט, זָכָר, קָדוֹשׁ, בְּמַתָּנָה! הָנָךְ נְפִישָׁן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **On the contrary, he should derive** it **from human** births, **as** both cases share the following four characteristics: They are both instances of **ordinary,** non-firstborn offspring; they both apply to the offspring of either sex, and are not exclusively **males;** they are both dealing with offspring that are not automatically **sacred** at birth; and they both apply **to** offspring that are not **a gift** to a priest, but belong to an individual non-priest. By contrast, firstborn animals do not share any of these characteristics. The Gemara answers that the comparison to firstborn animals is preferable to the comparison to human childbirth because **these** shared characteristics **are more** numerous. The comparison to consecrated animals includes five shared characteristics, whereas the comparison to human births involves only four.


###### Niddah 40a:19
[Niddah 40a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/40a:19)

אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: תַּנְיָא דִּמְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הָעוֹלָה הִיא הָעוֹלָה״ — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה מִיעוּטִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Huna, said in the name of Rava:** A *baraita* **is taught which supports** the statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Yehuda says: “This is the law of the burnt offering; that is the burnt offering** that goes up on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2). It is derived from this verse that the *halakha* is that if a part of a disqualified offering is taken up to the altar it should be burned there, rather than taken down, despite its unfit status. **There are three** expressions which indicate **exclusion** in this verse: The term “this is,” which indicates this one and not another one; the term “that is,” indicating that one and not another one; and the term “the burnt offering” instead of “a burnt offering.”