Niddah 36b (לו:) — the Talmud in English

The blood of a woman who has given birth that emerges at the time of childbirth, or beforehand, while she is experiencing labor pains and suffering the pains of childbirth, does not render her impure by Torah law on account of ziva, as it is stated concerning a woman experiencing ziva: “when there is a discharge of her blood”—that is, when it is caused by herself, and not blood caused by the fetus.

Therefore, if the birth occurred during the days fit for ziva, the woman who gave birth need not count seven clean days after her days of impurity as a woman who has given birth.

However, if the labor pains ceased and only afterward the birth occurred, she is a woman who gave birth in a state of ziva, and she must count seven clean days after the days of impurity following childbirth have passed, whether for a male or for a female child.

The amoraim disagreed about the explanation of the Mishna, and the explanation presented here follows the words of Rava in the Gemara:

Mishna:

A woman experiencing labor pains

while giving birth, who saw blood during her labor pains, if that sight occurred during the days fit for menstruation, she is impure by Torah law with the impurity of

menstruation.

For the Torah rendered pure the blood caused by the labor pains of a menstruating woman only in the case of a woman experiencing ziva, during her days fit for ziva.

If she experienced labor pains

while giving birth and saw blood for

three days

consecutively

within the eleven days

fit for ziva,

and the pains subsided

and she became free of the pains of childbirth

for a full day

after seeing the blood,

and she gave birth

after being free of the pains for a full day—

she is a woman who gave birth in a state of ziva; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

For her being free of the pains for a full day between seeing the blood and giving birth proves that this blood was not blood caused by the labor of childbirth, which the Torah rendered pure from the impurity of ziva, but was merely blood of ziva.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

Being free of the pains for a full day is not sufficient in every case. Rather, it is sufficient only when the period free of pain is

a night and a day,

from the beginning of the night until the end of the following day [and not from midday until midday of the following day]. For it is

like

the period of a full day of

the night of Shabbat and its day! [Since Shabbat begins on Friday night and ends on the following evening].

For Shabbat begins on the night of Shabbat and ends on the following evening] .

The period of relief is considered an interruption between seeing the blood and giving birth

when she became free of the pain,

for a full day before giving birth. It is sufficient for her to be free only of the pain in order to establish her as a woman experiencing ziva,

and not

is it necessary for her also to become free

of the blood;

rather, even if she continues to see blood until giving birth, her being free of the pain is considered proof that there is no connection between seeing the blood and the birth, and this blood is blood of ziva!

How long is the labor pain,

meaning, for how long before the birth is her blood considered blood caused by the labor of childbirth, which the Torah rendered pure from ziva?

Rabbi Meir says: Even

if her pain began

forty or fifty days

before giving birth and continued without interruption until the birth, all the blood she saw during those forty or fifty days is pure!

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is sufficient that it began in the latest month!

It is sufficient if we render the blood caused by labor pure only during the final month of her pregnancy. However, if she experienced labor pains for three days in the eighth month of her pregnancy, even though the labor pains continued until the birth, she is considered a woman who gave birth in a state of ziva, because the beginning of the sighting did not occur in the ninth month.

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: Labor pains

of childbirth do not last

more than two weeks

before the birth. Therefore, if she saw blood three days before that period, she is considered a woman who gave birth in a state of ziva.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “A woman experiencing labor pains is a menstruating woman.”

The Gemara asks:

Is it so that every woman experiencing labor pains

while giving birth who saw blood, even during the days fit for ziva—

is she a menstruating woman?

But there is no status of menstruation during the days of ziva!?

Rav said:

Indeed, if she saw blood during the days of ziva, she is not a menstruating woman by Torah law. Rather, the Sages instituted that she should be

a menstruating woman for one day,

meaning that she is impure and forbidden to her husband by rabbinic law on that day alone,

and she immerses in the evening!

She is not required to observe, by rabbinic law, one day corresponding to one day, as is the law of a minor woman experiencing ziva, [because since the blood is blood caused by labor, which the Torah rendered pure from ziva, the Sages did not impose the stringency of concern that perhaps she would become free of the pain and it would become clear that the blood was impure; rather, they prohibited her by rabbinic law only on the day on which she saw it].

And Shmuel said:

The Sages decreed that she must also observe one day corresponding to one day, as is the law of a minor woman experiencing ziva. For

we are concerned that perhaps she will become free of the pain,

after seeing the blood, and give birth only after a full day, and it will become clear that she was a minor woman experiencing ziva when she saw the blood; and a minor woman experiencing ziva is forbidden by Torah law to engage in relations even while she observes the corresponding day!

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A woman experiencing labor pains—

is nothing!

The Sages did not decree anything concerning her. And since by Torah law blood caused by labor is pure from ziva, she is permitted to engage in relations even on the very day on which she saw the blood caused by labor.

The Gemara objects:

But it was taught: “A woman experiencing labor pains—

is a menstruating woman”?

Rava said:

The meaning of the Mishna is that if she saw blood caused by labor

during the days of menstruation,

she is

a menstruating woman. For the Torah rendered pure only blood of ziva when it comes with labor pains, but not menstrual blood.

However, if she saw blood caused by labor

during the days of ziva,

that is, during the eleven days between one period of menstruation and the next,

she is

pure!

But was it not taught

that we learned as follows in a beraita:

A woman experiencing labor pains

while giving birth who saw blood

during the days of menstruation—

she is

a menstruating woman! During the days of ziva

she is

pure!

How

is she experiencing labor pains during her days of ziva?

If

she experienced labor pains for one day and was free of them for two

days [from the pain, but continued to see blood, so that she saw blood for three days].

Or—

she experienced labor pains for two

days

and was free of them

from the pain for

one day [although she continued to see blood on that day].

but continued to see blood on it].

Or—

she was free of the pain

for one day,

experienced labor pains

on the second day,

and again became free of the pain

on the third day [and she saw blood during all three days]—

she is a woman who gave birth in a state of ziva!

Since she was free of the pain for a day before giving birth and saw blood during that day, it follows that this was not blood caused by labor, as it became clear that it was not blood caused by the fetus, but was blood caused by herself.

But—

she was free of the pain for one day and experienced labor pains for two.

Or—

she was free of the pain for two days and experienced labor pains for one day. 142 .

Or—

if she experienced labor pains, was free of them, and again experienced labor pains, she is not a woman who gave birth in a state of ziva!

The general principle:

If there was

labor pain adjacent to the birth—

she is not a woman who gave birth in a state of ziva!

But if she saw blood for three days and afterward there was

a period of relief

for a full day

adjacent to the birth—

she is a woman who gave birth in a state of ziva!

Ḥananya, the son of the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua, says: Whenever her labor pains occurred on the third of her days,

if she saw blood during her days of ziva for three days, but for only one hour, at the beginning of the third day, she felt the pain of labor, then

even

if

all

the remaining hours of

the day

of the third day

entirely

were

free of pain, and the relief continued through part of the fourth day, so that she was free of the pain of childbirth for a full day before giving birth—

she is not a woman who gave birth in a state of ziva!

For only if she was free of the pain for a complete twenty-four-hour period, beginning in the evening and ending on the following evening, is the period of relief considered an interruption between seeing the blood and giving birth. This concludes the beraita. The Gemara discusses the words of the first tanna in the beraita:

“The general principle,

if there was labor pain adjacent to the birth, she is not a woman who gave birth in a state of ziva”—

what does it come to include,

what additional case does this general principle include?

The Gemara explains:

To include the case of Ḥananya.

Even labor pains lasting only one hour negate a full day of relief.

The Gemara inquires:

From where are these words

that the Torah rendered the blood caused by the labor of childbirth pure?

As the Sages taught:

Concerning the verse, “And if a woman has a discharge,

her blood.”

The beraita expounds: When is she impure? When

“her blood” flows—

because of herself, and not

when the blood flows

because of the fetus! [For the word “her blood” has a mappik heh, indicating specifically blood that belongs to her].

You say

that the verse came to exclude blood that came

because of the fetus, or perhaps it

does not

come to exclude anything other than blood that came

because of an external cause [analogous to a male experiencing a discharge, who does not become impure through an external cause]?

When

the verse

says, “And if a woman has a discharge, her blood”—

behold,

blood that comes because of an

external cause

has already been

stated

to be impure [because the meaning of “discharge” includes every discharge, and apparently even one resulting from an external cause].

How, then, do I understand

the verse

“her blood”?

To teach you that only

her blood

that comes

because of herself

is impure,

and not

blood that comes

because of the fetus!

And if you ask:

What did you see

to expound “her blood”

to render pure the

blood caused by labor

because of

the fetus, and to render impure

blood seen even

through an external cause [as implied by the exposition of “discharge,” which indicates every kind], rather than expounding it in the reverse manner and rendering impure only a discharge caused by the fetus?

The answer is:

I render pure

blood that comes with labor

because of the fetus,

because the Torah was lenient concerning it in that

there are

days of

purity after it,

for if the woman sees blood during the days of purity for a male or a female child, she does not become impure.

And I render impure

blood that comes

through an external cause,

because the Torah was stringent concerning it, in that

there are no

days of

purity after it!

This concludes the wording of the beraita.

The Gemara objects:

On the contrary:

On the contrary:

From logical reasoning, it would be appropriate to expound in the reverse manner:

I render pure

a woman’s blood that is seen

through an external cause, because we find that the Torah was lenient in the laws of ziva.

For

a discharge that emerges because of

an external cause in a man experiencing a discharge

[a male]—

is it not pure!?

The Gemara answers in two ways:

a.

Now, at any rate, we are discussing a woman, and we find no case of an external cause in a woman.

For nowhere do we find that blood seen by a woman because of an external cause is pure!

b.

And if you wish, say: What is your reasoning? To

render pure

a woman’s blood

through an external cause, and to

render impure blood caused by labor

because of the fetus.

It is impossible to say so! For the sighting of blood resulting from the difficulty of childbirth -

is no greater circumstance of duress than this!

Whereas blood resulting from duress is pure, certainly blood resulting from the difficulty of childbirth should be declared pure by virtue of the law of blood seen under duress!

The Gemara now explains the beraita’s derivation for declaring blood seen during the difficulty of childbirth pure:

If so,

if we derive from the word “her blood” concerning a zava that it excludes blood seen during the difficulty of childbirth, since the letter heh in the word is pronounced with a mappik, then with regard to the blood of a

menstruant as well, shall we not say

with regard to what is stated concerning a menstruant, “Her blood shall be

her flow”

(with a mappik in the heh), and derive from

“her flow” that

the flow of menstrual blood

caused by her own body

renders her impure,

but not

menstrual blood that comes

as a result of the fetus!?

Do not wonder how

you can say

that the verse comes to exclude blood seen during the difficulty of childbirth caused by a

fetus, or perhaps it

does not exclude

anything but

the sighting of

blood under duress?

Your answer is:

When it says, “And when a woman shall have a flow,” blood seen under duress has already been mentioned

(for “a flow” indicates any flow, even one caused by duress).

Then how am I to understand “her flow”?

It teaches you that only

her flow caused by her own body

is impure,

but not

a flow that comes

as a result of a fetus!

And why, then, did they say above that blood seen during the difficulty of childbirth during the days of menstruation is impure blood?

Reish Lakish said:

The source for declaring blood seen during the difficulty of childbirth pure is not derived from “her blood,” stated concerning a zava, but from what

the verse says: “And for sixty-six days she shall

sit”

in the blood of her purification”

(the word “sit” is superfluous, since Scripture could have said: “And for sixty-six days—the blood of her purification”). Rather, it teaches you that

you have another sitting

(an additional one)

that is like this one

and whose blood is pure. This implies that there is only one additional sitting

and which one is it?

This

is the blood

seen during the difficulty of childbirth during the days of ziva.

Reish Lakish understood that this verse teaches with regard to blood of ziva because the meaning of the verse “her blood” is: caused by her own body, and not caused by a fetus. But it does not teach that menstrual blood is pure, because the meaning of the word “her flow” does not exclude blood caused by a fetus.

But the Gemara saw no distinction between “her flow,” stated concerning a menstruant, and “her blood,” stated concerning a zava. Therefore, it raised the following objection:

And say—

this

is the blood

seen during the difficulty of childbirth during the days of menstruation?

Rather, Avuh of Shmuel said:

With regard to a woman who gives birth to a female, it is stated (Leviticus 12:5):

“And she shall be impure for two weeks, as during her menstruation,”

and we derive that a woman who gives birth is impure like “her menstruation,” meaning that she is impure in every circumstance, just as menstrual blood is always impure in every circumstance.

And not like “her ziva,”

for there are circumstances in which ziva is pure, which is not the case with menstruation.

Avuh of Shmuel infers:

By inference,

there is a circumstance in which

her ziva is pure!

And which one is it?

This is blood seen during the difficulty of childbirth during the days of ziva!

The Gemara raises an objection to the beraita cited above:

And now that it is written

“And she shall be impure for two weeks, as during her menstruation,”

from which it was derived that blood seen during the difficulty of childbirth does not render her impure during the days of ziva, if so,

why do I need the derivation from “her blood”?

The Gemara answers:

Had “her blood” not been written, I would have said: “As during her menstruation and not as during her ziva,” even when the blood was seen without difficulty!

Since during the first two days of her seeing blood she saw it during the difficulty of childbirth, those days are not combined to render her impure even if she had relief on the third day, since they derived “and not as during her ziva,” whose meaning is that blood seen during the difficulty of childbirth by a zava is pure in every circumstance.

This teaches us

the derivation from “her blood”: only if she had not had relief before childbirth is the exclusion “caused by her own body and not caused by a fetus” applicable; but once she had relief, her sighting is not considered “caused by a fetus,” but rather “caused by her own body.”

Shila bar Avina,

a student of Rav,

acted in accordance with Rav’s ruling

in the case of a woman who saw blood during the difficulty of childbirth during her days of ziva, and he declared her impure for one day.

When Rav’s soul was about to depart

(before his death),

Rav said to

Rav

Asi—

Go

to Shila bar Avina,

and conceal it

(see to it that this ruling is concealed), and tell Shila bar Avina to retract his ruling declaring her impure for one day, for the halakha is that blood seen during the difficulty of childbirth is entirely pure!

And if he does not obey

you,

drag him along!

(Persuade and draw him to retract his ruling through sound arguments and proofs.)

He

(Rav Asi did not hear Rav’s words clearly when he told him “drag him along,” and therefore)

understood

that Rav

had said to him, “Cut him down”

(to cut him off through excommunication, from the expression “Cut down the tree”)

!

After Rav’s soul had departed, he said to him

Rav Asi said to Shila bar Avina—

Retract

your ruling declaring blood seen during the difficulty of childbirth impure for one day, and we will declare it entirely pure, since

Rav had retracted his ruling

declaring it impure before his death!

Shila bar Avina, who had been Rav’s student, said to him—

If it is true that he retracted his ruling,

Rav

would have told me!

Shila bar Avina did not obey

Rav Asi’s words and did not retract his ruling.

“Cut him down”

(Rav Asi excommunicated Shila bar Avina)!

Shila bar Avina said to

Rav Asi—

Are you not afraid of being burned

(are you not concerned about being scorched by my coal)?

Rav Asi said to him

—

I am Asi ben Yehuda, who is Asi ben Gur Aryeh, who is Asi ben Gamliel, who is Asi ben Mahalalel,

and the meaning of the name “Asi” is

a copper mortar

(a mortar made of copper)

that rust cannot affect!

Shila bar Avina said to him

—

And I am Shila bar Avina, an iron pestle

(an iron pestle)

that shatters a copper mortar!

Rav Asi became ill!

They put him into hot water and took him out of cold water.

They put him into cold water and took him out of hot water.

Rav Asi’s soul departed!