## Niddah Daf 41a

###### Niddah 41a:1
[Niddah 41a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41a:1)

אַחַר שֶׁרִיבָּה הַכָּתוּב וּמִיעֵט, אָמַרְתָּ: מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ שֶׁהָיָה פְּסוּלָן בַּקֹּדֶשׁ, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה פְּסוּלָן בַּקֹּדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Shimon explains: **After the verse** both **included** some disqualified offerings in this principle **and excluded** others, **you should say: I include** in the items that should not be taken down if they had been placed on the altar **those whose disqualification** occurred **in the sacred** area, i.e., the Temple courtyard, in the course of the sacrificial service, e.g., an offering that was slaughtered at night, or whose blood spilled before sprinkling. **And I exclude those whose disqualification was not in the sacred** area, such as an animal that copulated with a person, as these animals were disqualified before their sacrificial process began. This concludes the *baraita*.


###### Niddah 41a:2
[Niddah 41a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41a:2)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן דְּלָא, מַאי לַָאו יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן דְּקָדָשִׁים? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן: לָא, יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן דִּבְכוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains how this *baraita* supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. The *baraita* **teaches, in any event, that** an animal **born by caesarean section** is **not** fit for sacrifice. **What, is it not** referring to one who consecrates an animal born by **caesarean section** and renders it **a sacrificial** animal? Evidently, although Rabbi Shimon maintains that a human birth by caesarean section has the halakhic status of a regular birth, he concedes that animals born in this manner are unfit for sacrifice. **Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said: No,** the *baraita* is dealing **with a firstborn** animal born by **caesarean section,** and it is this animal that is disqualified as an offering. A firstborn animal is sacred only if it emerged from the womb.


###### Niddah 41a:3
[Niddah 41a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41a:3)

בְּכוֹר — מִ״פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם״ נָפְקָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects to this interpretation of the *baraita*: How can it be referring to **a firstborn** animal? The *halakha* that firstborn status does not apply to an animal born by caesarean section is **derived from** the phrase **“opens the womb,”** which teaches that only animals born in the natural manner are endowed with the sanctity of firstborn animals and may be sacrificed on the altar. Since an animal born by caesarean section is not sacred at all, and it is clear that a non-sacred animal cannot be sacrificed upon the altar, it is obvious that the animal must be taken down if it was placed there in error.


###### Niddah 41a:4
[Niddah 41a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41a:4)

אֶלָּא מַאי, דְּקָדָשִׁים? מֵ״אִמּוֹ״ ״אִמּוֹ״ נָפְקָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds to this objection: **Rather, what** would you say? Would you say that the *baraita* is referring to an ordinary animal, not a firstborn, **that** had been consecrated as **a sacrificial** animal? But this animal is not sacred either, as **derived from** the verbal analogy of the term **“its mother”** stated with regard to the firstborn and the term **“its mother”** stated in connection with consecrated animals, as Rabbi Yoḥanan taught earlier. If one seeks to consecrate as an offering an animal that was born by caesarean section, it is not rendered sacred at all. Accordingly, the same reasoning applies as before: It is evident that a non-sacred animal may not be placed on the altar, and it must be removed if placed there in error.


###### Niddah 41a:5
[Niddah 41a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41a:5)

הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּקָדָשִׁים — הַיְינוּ דְּאִצְטְרִיכִי תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי; חַד לְבֶהֱמַת חוּלִּין דְּאוֹלִיד דֶּרֶךְ דּוֹפֶן וְאַקְדְּשַׁהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this response: **What is this** comparison between firstborn animals and consecrated animals? **Granted, if you say** that the *baraita* is referring to animals **that are consecrated** to be offerings, **that is why two verses are necessary: One** verse, the verbal analogy between consecrated animals and firstborn animals, teaches **that a non-sacred animal** whose mother **gave birth** to it **by caesarean section and** whose owner subsequently **consecrated it** as an offering is not sacred at all, and must therefore be removed from the altar if it was placed there in error.


###### Niddah 41a:6
[Niddah 41a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41a:6)

וְחַד לְבֶהֱמַת קָדָשִׁים דְּאוֹלִיד דֶּרֶךְ דּוֹפֶן, וְקָסָבַר וַלְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים בַּהֲוָיָיתָן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁים. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דִּבְכוֹר — מִ״פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם״ נָפְקָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And one** verse: “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), teaches **with regard to a sacrificial animal that gave birth by caesarean section,** that although the offspring is sacred by virtue of its mother’s sanctity, it may not be sacrificed and must be removed from the altar if placed there in error. **And** the *tanna* of this *baraita* **maintains** that the **offspring of sacrificial animals are** automatically **sacred upon their emergence** from the womb. **But if you say** that the *baraita* is referring **to a firstborn** animal that was born by caesarean section, the *halakha* that this animal is not sacred **is derived from** the phrase **“opens the womb.”**


###### Niddah 41a:7
[Niddah 41a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41a:7)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִדְּקָתָנֵי: ״הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע וְהַמּוּקְצֶה וְהַנֶּעֱבָד וְהַכִּלְאַיִם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **So too, it is reasonable** to interpret the *baraita* in this manner, that it is referring to an offspring born to a sacrificial animal by caesarean section, **from** the fact **that** the *baraita* **teaches** that **an animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and** an animal **that** was **set aside** for idol worship, **and** an animal **that was worshipped** as a deity, **and** an animal that is an offspring of **diverse kinds,** must all be removed from the altar if placed there in error.


###### Niddah 41a:8
[Niddah 41a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41a:8)

הָנֵי מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא! ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״ — לְהוֹצִיא הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע, ״מִן הַבָּקָר״ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנֶּעֱבָד, ״מִן הַצֹּאן״ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמּוּקְצֶה, ״וּמִן הַצֹּאן״ — לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַנּוֹגֵחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: Now **are these** disqualifications **derived from here,** from the verse adduced by the *baraita*? No, they are **derived from elsewhere,** as taught in a *baraita*: The verse states: “You shall bring your offering from the cattle, even from the herd or from the flock” (Leviticus 1:2). The expression **“from the cattle”** serves **to exclude** from eligibility as an offering **an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality.** The expression **“from the herd”** serves **to exclude** an animal **that was worshipped** as a deity. **“From the flock”** serves **to exclude** an animal **set aside** for idol worship. The word “or” in the expression **“or from the flock”** serves **to exclude** an animal **that gored** a person, killing him. In all these cases the animal cannot be consecrated at all, and therefore it is not necessary for the Torah to teach that they must be removed from the altar if placed there in error.


###### Niddah 41a:9
[Niddah 41a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41a:9)

וְתוּ, כִּלְאַיִם מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא: ״שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב אוֹ עֵז״ — ״שׁוֹר״ פְּרָט לְכִלְאַיִם, ״אוֹ עֵז״ פְּרָט לְנִדְמֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** is the disqualification of an animal born of a mixture of **diverse kinds derived from here?** No, it is **derived from elsewhere,** as taught in a *baraita*: The verse states: “When **a bull or a sheep or a goat** is born, it shall be seven days under its mother; but from the eighth day and onward it may be accepted for an offering” (Leviticus 22:27). The term **“a bull”** serves **to exclude** an offspring of **diverse kinds** from being used as an offering, The phrase **“or a goat”** serves **to exclude** an animal that **resembles** another, i.e., a sheep that is the offspring of sheep but that looks like a goat, or vice versa. Once again, as these animals cannot be consecrated at all, it is not necessary for the Torah to teach that they must be removed from the altar if placed there in error.


###### Niddah 41a:10
[Niddah 41a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41a:10)

אֶלָּא, אִצְטְרִיכוּ תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי: חַד לְבֶהֱמַת חוּלִּין, וְחַד לְבֶהֱמַת קָדָשִׁים. הָכָא נָמֵי: אִיצְטְרִיךְ תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that **two verses are necessary** for each of these cases: **One to** teach that **a non-sacred animal** that is subject to any of these disqualifications cannot be consecrated, **and** the other **one to** teach that with regard to **a sacrificial animal** that was born with this status by virtue of its mother’s sanctity, if it is subject to one of these disqualifications it may not be sacrificed and must be removed from the altar if placed there in error. Accordingly, it stands to reason that **here too,** in the case of an animal born by caesarean section, **two verses** are **necessary** for the same reason: One for a non-sacred animal, to teach that it cannot be consecrated, and another for the offspring of a sacrificial animal.


###### Niddah 41a:11
[Niddah 41a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41a:11)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמְקַשָּׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים, וְיָצָא וָלָד דֶּרֶךְ דּוֹפֶן — הֲרֵי זוֹ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין זוֹ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב, וְדָם הַיּוֹצֵא מִשָּׁם טָמֵא, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: Although a woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period is rendered a *zava* and must count seven clean days before immersing and purifying herself, if a pregnant woman **experiences** birth **pangs** accompanied by bleeding for **three days** after her menstrual period, at the end of which she gives birth, she is not rendered a *zava*, as the bleeding is attributed to the childbirth. **And** if the **offspring emerged by caesarean section, she is** considered **one who has given birth during** a period of ***ziva*. But Rabbi Shimon says: She is not** considered **one who has given birth during** a period of ***ziva*. And** the **blood that emerges from there is ritually impure, but Rabbi Shimon deems** it **pure.**


###### Niddah 41a:12
[Niddah 41a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/41a:12)

בִּשְׁלָמָא רֵישָׁא — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְטַעְמֵיהּ וְרַבָּנַן לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, אֶלָּא סֵיפָא בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? אָמַר רָבִינָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּצָא וָלָד דֶּרֶךְ דּוֹפֶן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the *baraita*: **Granted, the first clause** of the *baraita* is clear: **Rabbi Shimon** conforms **to his** line of **reasoning,** cited in the mishna, that birth via caesarean section has the halakhic status of childbirth; **and the Rabbis,** i.e., the first *tanna*, conform **to their** line of **reasoning,** that birth via caesarean section does not have the halakhic status of childbirth. **But** in **the latter clause, with regard to what** matter **do they disagree? Ravina said:** The latter clause is referring to a case **where the offspring emerged by caesarean section,**