נדה מ׳ ב:ה׳-מ״א א:א׳

These three expressions allude to the exclusion of the following three cases from the above principle: An offering that was disqualified because it was slaughtered at night, and an offering whose blood spilled before it could be sprinkled on the altar, and an offering whose blood was disqualified because it was taken outside the curtains [lakela’im] surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle in the wilderness, i.e., it left the Temple courtyard. These three cases are excluded, as in these instances, if parts of the disqualified offering ascended, i.e., were brought upon the altar, they must descend, i.e., be taken down.,Rabbi Shimon says: From the verse’s reference to a burnt offering, I have derived only that a valid burnt offering should not be taken down from the altar. From where is it derived that the verse also serves to include the following disqualified offerings: An offering that is invalid because it was slaughtered at night; and one whose blood spilled before sprinkling; and one whose blood was taken outside the curtains, i.e., the Temple courtyard; and one whose blood was left overnight; and one that was itself taken out of the Temple courtyard; and one that became ritually impure; and one that was left overnight; and one that was slaughtered with the intent to eat its flesh beyond its designated time or outside its designated area.,And likewise, from where is it derived that the verse serves to include offerings that those who are unfit for performing the Temple service collected or sprinkled their blood; and offerings whose blood is supposed to be placed above the red line of the altar but which one placed below that line; and offerings whose blood is supposed to be placed below the red line of the altar but which one placed above it; and offerings whose blood should be placed on the altar situated outside the Sanctuary but which one instead placed on the altar inside the Sanctuary; and offerings whose blood should be placed on the altar inside the Sanctuary but which one placed on the altar outside; and a Paschal offering and a sin offering that one slaughtered not for their own sake, i.e., while slaughtering he actually intended to sacrifice a different offering? From where is it derived that although these offerings are disqualified, if they were brought up to the altar they are not taken down?,The verse states: “This is the law of the burnt offering.” The verse thereby included in one law all items that ascend upon the altar, even disqualified offerings, teaching that if they ascended the altar, they shall not descend.,Rabbi Shimon continues: One might have thought that I should also include 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 was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog; and an animal that is an offspring of diverse kinds, i.e., crossbreeding; and an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa]; and an animal born by caesarean section. Therefore, the verse states: “This,” to exclude these disqualifications.,Rabbi Shimon elaborates: And what did you see, i.e., what is the reason to include these particular cases and to exclude those particular cases? 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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.”,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.,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.,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.,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.,§ 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.,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,