Niddah 36b — the Talmud in English

The blood of a woman who has given birth, which emerges at the time of birth or beforehand, when she is struggling to give birth and feels the pains of childbirth, does not impart impurity by Torah law on account of ziva, as it is stated concerning a zava: “her blood will flow” [Leviticus 15:25]—that is, because of herself, and not blood that comes because of the fetus.

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

But if the pains of childbirth ceased and afterward the birth occurred, she is a woman who has given birth in a state of ziva, and she must count seven clean days after the days of impurity of childbirth for a male or for a female have passed. [

The amoraim disputed the explanation of the Mishna, and the explanation before us follows the words of Rava in the Gemara]:

Mishna:

One struggling

to give birth, and she saw blood while struggling to give birth—if that sight occurred during the days fit for niddah , she is impure by Torah law with the impurity of

niddah.

For the Torah purified the blood of the labor pains of a woman in a state of niddah only of a woman in a state of ziva, during her days of ziva.

She struggled

to give birth, and saw blood for

three days

consecutively,

within the eleven days

fit for ziva,

and became relieved

and quiet from the pains of childbirth

for a full twenty-four hours

after seeing the blood,

and gave birth

after becoming relieved for a full twenty-four hours—

she is a woman who has given birth in a state of ziva, the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

For becoming relieved for a full twenty-four hours between seeing the blood and the birth proved that this blood was not the blood of the labor pains of childbirth, which the Torah purified from the impurity of ziva, but rather it was merely blood of ziva.

Rabbi Joshua says:

It is not sufficient that she become relieved for a full twenty-four hours in every situation. Rather, only when the period of relief for a full twenty-four hours is

a night and a day,

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

like

the full twenty-four hours of

the night of Shabbat and its day! [

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

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

when she became relieved from the pain,

for a full twenty-four hours before the birth. And relief from the pain alone is sufficient to make her a woman in a state of ziva,

and not

is it necessary that she also become relieved

from the blood,

but even if she continues to see blood until the birth, the relief from the pain is considered proof that there is no connection between seeing the blood and the birth, and this blood is blood of a woman in a state of ziva!

How long is her labor pain,

for how long before the birth is her blood considered the blood of the labor pains of childbirth, which the Torah purified from ziva?

Rabbi Meir says: Even

if her pain began

forty or fifty days

before the birth and continued without interruption until the birth, all the bloods that she saw during these forty or fifty days are pure!

Rabbi Judah says: A new month is sufficient for her!

It is sufficient if we purify the blood of the labor pains only during the last month of her pregnancy. But if she struggled for three days in the eighth month of her pregnancy, even though the labor pain continued until the birth, she is considered a woman who has given birth in a state of ziva, because the beginning of the sighting was not in the ninth month.

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: There are no labor pains

of childbirth

for more than two Shabbatot

before the birth! Therefore, if she saw blood three days before them, she is considered a woman who has given birth in a state of ziva.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “One struggling—a woman in a state of niddah.”

The Gemara wonders:

Is it so that everyone who struggles

to give birth and sees blood, even during the days fit for ziva—

is she a woman in a state of niddah?

But there is no niddah during the days of ziva!

Rav said:

Indeed, if she saw during the days of ziva , she is not a woman in a state of niddah by Torah law; rather, the Sages instituted that she be

a woman in a state of niddah for one day,

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

and she immerses in the evening!

And she is not required to observe by rabbinic law one day corresponding to one day, as is the law of a lesser zava, [because since the blood is the blood of labor pains, which the Torah purified from ziva, the Sages did not impose stringency upon it, to be concerned lest she become relieved from the pain and it become clear that the blood is impure; rather, they forbade 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 lesser zava. For

we are concerned lest she become relieved,

after seeing the blood, and give birth only after a full twenty-four hours, and it become clear that she was a lesser zava at the time of her sighting, and a lesser zava is forbidden to have intercourse by Torah law even while she observes a corresponding day!

And Rabbi Isaac said: One who struggles—

is nothing!

The Sages did not decree anything concerning her at all. And since by Torah law the blood of labor pains is pure from ziva, she is permitted to have intercourse even on the very day on which she saw the blood of the labor pains .

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But it teaches, “One who struggles—

a woman in a state of niddah”?

Rava said:

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

during the days of niddah,

she is

a woman in a state of niddah.

For the Torah purified only the blood of ziva when it comes with labor pains, but not the blood of niddah.

But if she saw the blood of labor pains

during the days of ziva,

that is, during the eleven days between one niddah and the next, she is

pure!

And it was taught:

Thus we learned in a beraita:

One who struggles

to give birth and sees blood,

during the days of niddah—

she is

a woman in a state of niddah! During the days of ziva

she is

pure!

How

is her labor pain during her days of ziva?

If she

struggled for one day and became relieved for two

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

Or—

she struggled for two

days,

and became relieved

from the pain

for one day [

but continued to see blood on it].

Or—

she became relieved

from her pains for one day,

and struggled

on the second day,

and again became relieved

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

she is a woman who has given birth in a state of ziva!

Since she became relieved for one day before the birth and saw blood on it, it follows that this is not the blood of labor pains, for it became clear that it was not blood because of the fetus, but rather it is blood because of herself.

But—

she became relieved for one day and struggled for two.

Or—

she became relieved for two and struggled for one 142.

Or—

if she struggled, became relieved, and again struggled, she is not a woman who has given birth in a state of ziva!

The general principle:

If there was

labor pain adjacent to the birth—

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

And if she saw for three days and afterward there was

relief

for a full twenty-four hours

adjacent to the birth—

she is a woman who has given birth in a state of ziva!

Hanania, the son of Rabbi Joshua’s brother, says: Whenever her labor pain occurred on her third day,

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,

even

if

all

the remaining hours of

the day

the third

entirely

were

in relief, and the relief continued through part of the fourth day, so that she had relief from the pain of childbirth for a full twenty-four hours before the birth—

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

For only if she became relieved for a complete day, which begins in the evening and ends in the following evening, is the relief considered an interruption between seeing the blood and the birth [ until here is 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 has given birth in a state of ziva”—

what does it come to include,

what does this general principle come to include?

And the Gemara explains:

To include Hanania.

That even labor pain for one hour cancels the relief of an entire day.

And the Gemara clarifies:

From where are these words

that the Torah purified the blood of the labor pains of childbirth?

For the Sages taught:

Regarding the verse [Leviticus 15:25], “And when a woman has a flow,

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 “her blood” is emphasized with a mappiq in the he, and its meaning is specifically blood belonging to her].

You say

that the verse came to exclude blood that came

because of the fetus, or perhaps it

came to exclude only blood that came

because of an accident [

analogous to a male zav, who does not become impure through an accident]?

When [

the verse]

says, “And when a woman has a flow, her blood”—

behold,

blood that comes because of

an accident

has already been

stated as impure [because the meaning of “flow” is every flow. It implies even a flow that comes through an accident].

to be impure [because the term “flow” indicates every type of flow, including one resulting from an external cause].

How then do I uphold

the verse

“her blood”—to teach you that only

It teaches that only

her blood

that comes

because of herself

is impure,

and not

the blood that comes

because of the fetus!

And if you ask:

And what did you see

to expound “her blood”

to purify the

blood of labor pains that comes because of

the fetus, and to render impure

the blood seen even

through an accident [

for the exposition “flow” implies every kind], and why should we not expound the opposite and render impure only a flow that comes because of the fetus?

This is your answer:

I purify

the blood that comes through labor pains

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 for a female, she does not become impure.

And I render impure

the blood that comes

through an accident,

because the Torah was stringent concerning it, in that

there are no

days of

purity after it! [

Until here is the language of the beraita].

The Gemara raises an objection:

On the contrary:

from reasoning it is appropriate to expound the opposite:

I purify

the blood of a woman that is seen

through an accident,

because we find that the Torah was lenient in the laws of ziva.

For

a flow that emerges because of

an accident in a male zav [

a male]—

is pure!?

The Gemara answers in two ways:

a.

Now, at any rate, we are dealing with a woman, and we do not find an accident in the case of a woman.

For we have not found anywhere that blood seen by a woman because of an accident is pure!

b.

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

the blood of a woman

through an accident, and to render impure

the blood of labor pains

because of the fetus.

It is impossible to say so! For surely seeing blood as a result of the difficulty of childbirth

has no greater duress than this!

Whereas blood caused by duress is pure, certainly blood caused by labor pains should be rendered pure by the law of seeing blood caused by duress!

And now the Gemara explains the teaching of the

beraita to render the blood caused by labor pains pure:

If so, since we expound “her blood” of a zava to exclude blood caused by labor pains, since the letter heh in it is dageshed, then concerning the blood of a

menstruant as well, let us say

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

her flow” [with a mappiq in the heh]—and let us expound

“her flow,”

the flow of the blood of menstruation

on account of herself

renders impure,

but not

the blood of menstruation that comes

on account of a fetus!?

as a result of the fetus!?

And do not wonder how

you say

that the verse comes to exclude the blood caused by labor pains of a

fetus, or perhaps it

excludes

only

the seeing of

duress?

Your answer is:

When it says, “And if a woman becomes a zava, duress has already been stated” [for “zava” signifies any flow, even one caused by duress].

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

Then how do I fulfill “her flow”—

to teach you that only

her flow on account of herself

is impure,

but not

the flow that comes

on account of a fetus!

And why did they say above that blood caused by labor pains during the days of menstruation is impure blood?

Reish Lakish said—

The source for rendering the blood caused by labor pains pure is not learned from “her blood,” which is stated concerning a zava, but from what

the verse says: “And sixty days and six days

she shall sit

in the blood of purity” [and the word “she shall sit” is superfluous, for the verse could have said: “And sixty days and six days—the blood of purity”]. Rather, this teaches you:

you have another sitting [an additional one]

that is like this,

whose blood is pure. And it implies that there is only one additional sitting,

and which is this?

This is the blood

caused by labor pains during the days of flow.

This

is the blood

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

And Reish Lakish reasoned that this verse is used to derive a ruling concerning the blood of flow because the meaning of the verse “her blood” is: on account of herself and not on account of a fetus. But they do not learn from it to render the blood of menstruation pure, because the meaning of the verse “her flow” does not exclude blood caused by a fetus.

But the Gemara did not see a distinction between “her flow,” which is stated concerning a menstruant, and “her blood,” which is stated concerning a zava. Therefore it objected:

Or say—

this is the blood

caused by labor pains during the days of menstruation?

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

Rather, Avuh of Samuel said:

It is stated concerning a woman who gives birth to a female [Leviticus 12:5]:

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

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

And not like “her flow,”

for there are circumstances in which flow is pure, unlike menstruation.

And Avuh of Samuel infers:

By implication,

there is a circumstance

in which her flow is pure!

And which is this?—

This is labor pains during the days of flow!

The Gemara raises an objection to the

beraita above,

and now that it is written, “And she shall be impure for two weeks, as during her menstruation,”

and they learned from this that blood caused by labor pains does not render impure during the days of flow, if so, the exposition that they expounded in the

“her blood”—what do I need it for?

The Gemara answers:

If not for “her blood,” I would have said, “as during her menstruation and not as during her flow,” even when it occurs without labor pains!

For since during the first two days of her seeing she saw through labor pains, they do not join them to render her impure even if she had relief on the third day, since they expounded “and not as during her flow,” whose meaning is that the blood caused by labor pains of a zava is pure in every circumstance.

It teaches us

the teaching from “her blood” that only if she did not have relief before childbirth is “on account of herself and not on account of a fetus” excluded; but when she had relief, her seeing is not considered “on account of a fetus” but rather “on account of herself.”

Shila bar Avina,

a student of Rav,

carried out an act in accordance with Rav

concerning a woman who saw blood caused by labor pains during her days of flow, and he rendered her impure for one day.

When Rav’s soul was departing [before his death],

(before his death),

Rav said

to Rav Asi:

—

Go

to Shila bar Avina,

conceal it [take care to conceal that ruling], and tell Shila bar Avina to retract his ruling to render her impure for a day, for the halakha is that blood caused by labor pains is entirely pure!

(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!

drag and pull him to retract by means of cogent arguments and proofs].

He [Rav Asi, who did not hear Rav’s words “drag him” properly,

]

thought

that Rav

“cut him down” [to cut him off through excommunication, from the expression “Cut down the tree”]

had said to him!

!

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

—Rav Asi said to Shila bar Avina:

Retract

your ruling to render the blood caused by labor pains impure for one day, and we will render it entirely pure, since

Rav retracted

before his death from his ruling to render it impure!

He said to him—

Shila bar Avina, who had been Rav’s student, said to Rav Asi:

If it is so that he retracted,

Rav,

he would have told me!

He did not obey

Shila bar Avina did not obey Rav Asi’s words and did not retract his ruling.

He cut him down

Rav Asi excommunicated Shila bar Avina]!

He said to him

Shila bar Avina said to Rav Asi:

And does the Master not fear the conflagration [that is, are you not afraid of being burned by my ember]?

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

He said to him

Rav Asi said:

I am Asi son of Judah, who was Asi son of Gur Aryeh, who was Asi son of Gamaliel, who was Asi son of Mahalalel,

and the meaning of the name “Asi” is

a copper mortar

a copper mortar]

upon which rust has no power!

He said to him

Shila bar Avina said:

And I am Shila bar Avina, an

iron pestle

that shatters the copper mortar!

Rav Asi fell ill!

They put him in hot water and brought him out from cold water.

They put him in cold water and brought him out from hot water.

Rav Asi’s soul departed!