Niddah

MISHNAH. FOR A FOETUS BORN FROM ITS MOTHER'S SIDE  THERE IS NO NEED  TO SPEND  THE PRESCRIBED DAYS OF UNCLEANNESS  OR THE DAYS OF CLEANNESS;  NOR DOES ONE INCUR ON ITS ACCOUNT THE OBLIGATION TO BRING A SACRIFICE.  R. SIMEON RULED: IT IS REGARDED AS A VALID BIRTH. ALL WOMEN ARE SUBJECT TO UNCLEANNESS  [IF BLOOD APPEARED] IN THE OUTER CHAMBER,  FOR IT IS SAID IN SCRIPTURE, HER ISSUE IN HER FLESH BE BLOOD;  BUT A ZAB AND ONE WHO EMITTED SEMEN CONVEY NO UNCLEANNESS UNLESS THE DISCHARGE  CAME OUT OF THE BODY. IF A MAN WAS EATING TERUMAH WHEN HE FELT THAT HIS LIMBS SHIVERED,  HE TAKES HOLD OF HIS MEMBRUM  AND SWALLOWS THE TERUMAH. AND THE DISCHARGES CONVEY UNCLEANNESS, HOWEVER SMALL THE QUANTITY, EVEN IF IT IS ONLY OF THE SIZE OF A MUSTARD SEED OR LESS. GEMARA. R. Mani b. Pattish stated: What is the Rabbis' reason?  Scripture said, If a woman have conceived seed and born  a man child,  implying:  Only if she bears where she conceives.  And R. Simeon?  — That text  implies that even if she bore in the same manner only as she conceived  she  is unclean by reason of childbirth.  What, however, is R. Simeon's reason?  — Resh Lakish replied: Scripture said, She bear,  to include  A FOETUS BORN FROM ITS MOTHER'S SIDE. And the Rabbis?  — That text  is required to include  a tumtum  and an hermaphrodite. Since it might have been presumed that as it is written man child  and maid child  [the laws in the context apply only to] one who is undoubtedly male or undoubtedly female but not to a tumtum or an hermaphrodite, hence we were informed that the law applies to the latter also. And R. Simeon?  — He deduces it  from a teaching of Bar Liwai; for Bar Liwai taught. For a son,  implies: For any son, whatsoever his nature; For a daughter,  for any daughter, whatsoever her nature. And the Rabbis?  — They require this text for the deduction that a separate sacrifice is due for each son and for each daughter.  And R. Simeon?  — He deduced it  from the following which a Tanna recited before R. Shesheth: This is the law for her that beareth  teaches  that a woman brings one sacrifice for many children. It might be presumed that she brings only one sacrifice for a birth and for a zibah … But would then one sacrifice suffice for a woman after childbirth who ate blood or for one after childbirth who ate forbidden fat? — Rather say: It might be presumed that a woman brings only one sacrifice for a birth that took place before the completion of her clean days and for one that took place after their completion.  Therefore it was expressly written, 'This'.  And the Rabbis?  — Although 'this'  was written it was also necessary to have the text, 'For a son or for a daughter'.  For it might have been presumed that this law  applies only to two distinct conceptions  but  that in the case of a simultaneous conception as, for instance, that of Judah and Hezekiah the sons of R. Hiyya,  one sacrifice suffices,  hence we were informed [that even in such a case separate sacrifices are required for each birth]. R. Johanan stated: R. Simeon, however, agrees that in the case of consecrated beasts [the body of the young extracted by means of a caesarean cut] is not sacred.  What is the reason? He deduces the expression of 'birth' here  from that of 'birth' in the case of the firstling:  As in the latter case  the reference is to one that openeth the womb  so here also it is only to one that 'openeth the womb'. But why should not the expression of 'birth' here  be deduced from that of 'birth' in the case of a human being:  As in the latter case  a foetus extracted from its mother's side is included  so here also the young extracted from its mother's side should be included? — It stands to reason that the deduction should be made from the firstling, since 'the dam'  might also be deduced from 'the dam'.  On the contrary! Should not the deduction be made from the expression used of the human being, since thereby an ordinary birth  would be deduced from an ordinary birth?  But the fact is that the deduction was properly to be made from the firstling since in both cases  the expression 'dam'  is used, both are sacred beasts and both are subject to the laws of piggul, nothar  and uncleanness.  On the contrary! Should not the deduction be made from the expression used of the human being since both cases  are those of ordinary birth,  neither is restricted to the male sex,  neither  is naturally sacred,  and neither  is a priestly gift?  The former  are more in number. R. Hiyya son of R. Huna citing Raba observed, A Baraitha was taught which provides support for the statement of R. Johanan:  R. Judah stated, This is the law of the burnt-offering, it is that which goeth up,  behold these  are three limitations