Niddah 21a (כא.) — the Talmud in English

thin] glass.

more

—

two weeks of impurity from childbirth and sixty-six days of purity. [The Gemara will explain why there is a distinction between the various animal species, some of which cause impurity of childbirth and some of which do not.]

If you say that this is according to the Rabbis, now that red and black

which are colors that convey ritual impurity,

the Rabbis declare pure, should the green and white

which are colors that convey ritual purity

require mention?

Even without the beraita specifying this, we would know by means of a kal va-chomer that the Rabbis declare them pure.

Rather, is it not according to Rabbi Yehuda

that green and white are mentioned in order to teach us that he disputes the Rabbis and declares impure even the pieces that are not one of the four types of blood? Had they not been explicitly mentioned, it would have been possible to say that Rabbi Yehuda disputes only the status of the impure colors and declares them impure. If so, since green and white were mentioned only to clarify Rabbi Yehuda’s position, it is impossible to answer that Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling applies only to red and black. The difficulty therefore returns to Shmuel, who said that Rabbi Yehuda declared impure only a piece containing the four types of blood. This difficulty also applies to Rabbi Yohanan, who likewise holds that Rabbi Yehuda declared impure only a piece containing the four types of blood.

b.

Furthermore, according to Rabbi Yohanan,

there is an additional difficulty from the position of the Rabbis mentioned in the beraita. This is what the Gemara meant by saying that according to Rabbi Yohanan there are two difficulties.

For Rabbi Yohanan said

that a piece

containing the four types of blood

is deemed impure according to everyone. But it was taught

in the beraita:

“Red and black,”

which are among the four types of blood,

and

nevertheless,

the Rabbis dispute

Rabbi Yehuda and declare them pure?!

And if you would say that the Rabbis dispute with regard to green and white

and declare them pure,

but with regard to red and black they do not

dispute, and agree with Rabbi Yehuda that they are impure.

Rather,

if so,

“red and black”

which were mentioned in the beraita—

for whom were they taught? 12 .

If you say that this is according to Rabbi Yehuda, now that green and white

which are a pure color

are impure

according to Rabbi Yehuda,

red and black

which are an impure color

surely require no mention!?

Rather, is it not so

that the Mishna’s mention of red and black is according to

the Rabbis,

who declare green and white pure,

and

it is therefore evident that

they dispute

and declare even a red or black piece pure? This is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan?!

Because of these difficulties, the Gemara presents another explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis:

Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda concerns whether

“

it is possible for the opening of the womb

[the uterus]

to occur without blood”

[that is, whether it is possible for the uterus to open without blood emerging from it]—

they disagree.

One can raise the following difficulty: if Rabbi Yehuda also agrees that the piece itself does not render the woman impure, and that only the opening of the womb through which the piece emerged renders her impure, why is a woman who discharges a shell or a hair pure when they have not dissolved? Why is she not rendered impure by the opening of the womb through which they emerged? Tosafot [on the words “according to Rabbi”]. Tosafot explain that the Gemara’s answer was that “a woman who discharges a red or black piece” is an independent statement, intended to teach that the Sages agree that a red or black piece renders her impure even without additional blood. If so, why did the Gemara reject this with the question, “According to whom was it taught?” This statement is needed in order to teach that the Sages agree with Rabbi Yehuda. He answered that if the statement contained no additional teaching about declaring something pure, the baraita would not have written “red and black” as part of the first section in which the Sages declare the woman pure. Instead, it would have presented the matter in an orderly way and explained the law of red and black in the latter section, among Rabbi Yehuda’s words, in which he declares the woman impure. [22b, in the commentary beginning “Let him dispute”] and Ramban [there] answered that only a large piece, whose emergence requires a substantial opening of the womb, certainly causes blood to emerge. This is not the case with a shell or a hair, which are thin; their emergence does not entail that menstrual blood also emerged. See the Gemara below [22b], which asked why a woman who discharges fish or locusts, which are as large as a piece, is pure, and why we do not say that it is impossible for the opening of the womb to occur without blood. Rashash raised a difficulty in the Mishna: Even if Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling does not apply to a shell or a hair, as the Tosafot wrote, the Rabbis’ ruling does apply—that if she saw blood with them, she is impure. Why, then, did the Mishna omit this ruling with regard to a shell or a hair? He answered that not only is it unproven that blood emerged through a minimal opening, but such a circumstance is uncommon; therefore, the Mishna omitted it. See also what he wrote in his commentary on the Mishna.

And it is in the dispute between these tannaim, as it was taught:

[A woman who gives birth during the eleven days of zivah, if she experienced labor pains during childbirth and saw blood for several days until the birth, does not become impure as a zava. This law will be derived below, on 36b, from the verse “her blood”: Only blood that flows on its own conveys impurity, but not blood whose emergence was caused by the fetus. Therefore, she is impure only as a woman who has given birth and not as a zava. The practical difference is that she does not need to bring a sacrifice for a zava. However, if she]

experienced labor pains

for two days before the birth

and on the third day she discharged something, but does not know what she discharged,

whether it was a fetus, in which case she is impure as a woman who has given birth, or merely air, in which case she is not impure as a woman who has given birth. There is an additional practical difference resulting from this uncertainty concerning the impurity of zivah: Only in the case of a woman who has given birth do we declare the blood caused by labor pains preceding the birth pure, but not in the case of a woman who discharged air.