Niddah 37a (לז.) — the Talmud in English

Shila

bar Avina

said to his wife: “Prepare burial shrouds for me” [

He asked his wife to prepare burial shrouds for him],

so that

Rav Asi would not go to the World of Truth

and tell Rav things about me

when I am not there!

His wife did as he wished, and

prepared burial shrouds for him. Shila died!

Those who

were participating in the funerals of Rav Asi and Shila bar Avina, which took place simultaneously,

saw that a myrtle branch flew from this bier to that bier [

They would customarily place myrtle on the bier of the deceased, and during the funerals of Rav Asi and Shila, the myrtle branches flew from one man’s bier to the other’s].

They said: -

Conclude from this that the Sages made peace [

between them]!

Rava raised a dilemma:

A pregnant woman who had been a zava and had begun counting seven clean days for her purification, but in the midst of her counting experienced labor pains and saw blood,

the blood accompanying the labor—

does it invalidate

the sighting of blood accompanying the labor

with regard to ziva—

the count of the clean days that she had already counted ?

The alternatives of the dilemma are:

Does every

source of impurity invalidate

the count of seven clean days, even blood that does not render her impure as zava, because the fact that it renders her impure in other contexts is sufficient for its sighting to invalidate the count of the clean days?

And this

blood accompanying labor

also renders her impure, as during the days of menstruation [

since the Torah purified it only during the days of ziva], and therefore it invalidates the count of a zava .

Or perhaps—

only a

source that causes

ziva impurity

invalidates

the count of the seven clean days.

And this

blood accompanying labor

is not a cause,

since it does not render her impure through ziva. One who sees blood accompanying labor during the days of ziva is pure, and therefore it cannot invalidate the count of the clean days .

Abaye said

to Rava:

Involuntary emission during ziva proves—

that it does not cause the zav

to become impure,

and

nevertheless it

invalidates

the count of the clean days. For we learned in the tractate of Zavim [2:2] that if a zav sees a discharge during his seven clean days, even involuntarily, he invalidates his count and must begin counting another seven clean days!

Rava said

to Abaye:

Indeed! [

Your argument is incorrect], because in truth

this

involuntary discharge

also

is considered

a “cause”

of ziva.

For we learned [

Zavim, there]:

With regard to the first sighting,

he is examined

whether it was involuntary or not.

With regard to the second,

he is examined

in order to make him a full-fledged zav, who must count seven clean days for his purification; but with regard to the

third sighting,

which obligates him to bring an offering,

he is not examined,

because even if he saw involuntarily, it joins the previous sightings to obligate him to bring an offering.

And conclude from this that even an involuntary sighting “causes ziva,” since his ziva joins the previous sightings to obligate a zav to bring an offering!

Abaye returned and asked:

And according to Rabbi Eliezer, who says that even with regard to the third sighting he is examined,

in order to obligate him to bring an offering—for if the sighting was involuntary, he is exempt from the offering—

is it likewise the case that since it does not cause

the blood he saw involuntarily to generate a zav offering, it

also does not invalidate

the count of the clean days, since anything that does not cause impurity does not invalidate the count?!

He said to him,

Rava to Abaye:

According to Rabbi Eliezer, that is indeed the case:

Since blood seen involuntarily does not cause a zav offering, it also does not invalidate the count of the clean days required for purification from ziva.

Come and hear a refutation of Rava, for it was taught in a beraita:

a proof against Rava, for it was taught in a

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Even with regard to the third sighting, he is examined,

in order to obligate him to bring an offering. However,

with regard to the fourth sighting, he is not examined!

Is it not

the case that the phrase “he is examined with regard to the fourth sighting” means

with regard to invalidation

of the count of the clean days? With regard to making him a full-fledged zav and obligating him to bring an offering, there is no reason to examine him, since he had already become impure and incurred an offering obligation through the first three sightings. Conclude from this that according to Rabbi Eliezer, an involuntary sighting invalidates the count of seven clean days even though it does not cause ziva.

The Gemara rejects this:

No!

This is not a proof, for one can say that the question of whether he is examined with regard to the fourth sighting concerns

rendering that drop

of ziva

impure through carrying,

teaching us that even if its sighting was involuntary, it renders the person carrying it impure.

Come and hear: With regard to the third sighting—

Rabbi Eliezer says that he is examined; with regard to the fourth—

he is not examined.

Rabbi Eliezer would say:

I said that he is examined with regard to the offering

in the case of the third sighting,

but not with regard to invalidation!

Therefore, there is no need to examine him with regard to the fourth sighting, since it serves only to invalidate the count of the clean days!

And it is proven that Rabbi Eliezer holds that even an involuntary sighting, which does not obligate him to bring an offering, invalidates seven clean days! [And the earlier interpretation, that Rabbi Eliezer’s intent was to the impurity of the drop of ziva itself, is incorrect!]

Rather,

the Gemara concludes:

According to Rabbi Eliezer, resolve the question that something that does not cause impurity—

invalidates the count!

The Gemara continues to inquire:

And according to the Rabbis, what

is the ruling—does something that does not cause impurity invalidate the count or not?

Come and hear that it does not invalidate the count,

that it does not invalidate the count,

as the father of Rabbi Avin taught [

in explanation of the distinction between a seminal emission during the seven clean days of a zav, which invalidates only the day of the sighting, and a discharge of zov, which invalidates the entire count]:

That which caused his zov—

the impurity of

seven days; therefore, it invalidates

the entire count of

seven

clean days.

That which caused his seminal emission—

the impurity of

one day; therefore, it invalidates

the seminal emission

one day

alone from the count of the clean days.

What does the phrase “what

“what”

caused him to have zov—

his discharge

seven” mean?

If you say that it renders him impure for seven days,

why did he use the wording “what

caused

him”?

He should have said, ‘What: his zov is impure for seven days,’

to express the matter.

Rather, no, the wording “caused” was used to teach us that only

the expression “caused” was used to teach us that only

something that causes impurity—

invalidates the count, while something that does not cause impurity—

does not invalidate it!

And we conclude:

Conclude from this

that blood accompanying labor does not invalidate the count of seven clean days for ziva.

Abaye said: We have established

the halakha:

Blood accompanying labor does not invalidate the count in a case of ziva!

And if you find a tanna who says, “It invalidates the count,”

that statement is Rabbi Eliezer’s,

who said that even an involuntary sighting invalidates the count of seven clean days.

It was taught: Rabbi Marinus says:

Childbirth does not invalidate the count in a case of ziva—

a zava who is counting seven clean days for her ziva and gave birth during those days, without seeing blood during childbirth , the childbirth does not invalidate the count of the clean days.

They raised a dilemma before them: What is the status of childbirth with regard to a zavah?

Does it count toward the days of ziva?

And this is referring to a zavah who gave birth and did not see blood during the days of impurity of childbirth: Do those days, during which she is impure with the impurity of a woman who has given birth but did not see blood during them, count for her as seven clean days?

Abaye said: It does not invalidate the count, and it does not count toward it!

Rava said: It does not invalidate the count, and it counts toward it!

The dispute between Abaye and Rava concerns a zavah who began counting seven clean days and then gave birth, and both agree that the impurity of childbirth itself does not invalidate the tally of clean days. Rather, they disagree as to whether it is also possible to count the days of childbirth themselves as clean days, or whether it is sufficient that the preceding days not be invalidated on account of the impurity of childbirth, while the impure days of childbirth cannot be joined to the clean days of “purity” before the birth. Therefore, after the days of childbirth pass, she must complete the days lacking from her count.

Rava said: From where do I say

that childbirth does not invalidate the count and counts toward the tally of seven clean days?

As it is taught:

Concerning the verse [Leviticus 15:28], “And she shall count for herself seven days,”

“and afterward she shall be pure.”

They expounded it:

“Afterward”—

after

she counts

all of them—

all seven clean days—

as one, so that impurity will not interrupt between them!

Granted, if you say

that childbirth

counts

for her, so that she also counts the days of childbirth as clean days,

this is

the reason that childbirth does not invalidate the tally of seven clean days: Since

impurity does not interrupt,

because although the days of childbirth are themselves “days of impurity,” they join the seven clean days.

But if you say

that childbirth

does not count—

the days of impurity of childbirth cannot join the tally of seven clean days—then it follows that

the childbirth interrupts it

with regard to the tally of seven clean days, since she cannot count the seven days as one, and here there is no “after all of them”; so why should it not invalidate the entire count?

And Abaye could say to you—

the verse “after all of them” does not exclude a mere interruption in the tally of days. Indeed, she can join the clean days before her childbirth to the clean days that she will count after the days of impurity of childbirth, since she did not see blood either during the childbirth or during the days of impurity of childbirth. Rather, the verse comes only to teach

that the impurity of ziva should not interrupt between them,

but an interruption caused by the days of impurity of childbirth does not invalidate the count, because those days neither invalidate the count nor count toward it!

Therefore,

Rava said: From where do I say

that childbirth does not invalidate the count and counts toward it?

As it is taught

concerning the beginning of the aforementioned verse: “And when she is purified

from her ziva,

she shall count for herself seven days, and afterward she shall be pure”—they expounded:

“From her ziva”—

and not from her lesion!

That is, even a zavah who is afflicted with tzara'at can count seven clean days, bring the offering of a zavah, and become pure so as no longer to impart impurity to the man who has intercourse with her, despite the fact that she is still impure with the impurity of tzara'at . And they further expounded:

“From her ziva, and not from her childbirth!”

A zavah who gives birth in the middle of counting seven clean days may continue counting the clean days even during the days of impurity of childbirth, because the counting is for purification from her ziva and not for purification from childbirth!

It is thus proven that the days of childbirth do not invalidate the count and even count toward the tally of seven clean days!

And Abaye could say to you:

The wording of the beraita must be emended as follows:

Teach

one exposition

only

and do not teach:

“From her ziva

and not from her lesion,” and do not teach—

“and not from her childbirth!”

And no proof can be brought from it in support of Rava.

And Rava

said:

What is this?

It is impossible to emend the wording of the beraita according to Abaye’s version, for

granted, if you say

that the latter part of the beraita reads

“from her ziva and not from her childbirth,”

it is understandable why in the first part we taught, “from her ziva and not from her lesion.” For although we find [below] another exposition for this matter, nevertheless the tanna taught us, “from her ziva—and not from her lesion.” Since

it was necessary for him

to teach us that

childbirth

does not interrupt the count,

he taught

also

lesion [

that the impurity of lesions does not invalidate purification from ziva]

along with childbirth.

But if you say

as Abaye does, that the beraita contains only the first clause,

“from her ziva and not from her lesion,”

and that this is the entire novelty of the beraita—

this

exposition is entirely unnecessary, for

from

the verse [there, 13],

“And when the zav is purified from his flux,” is derived!

For we expound:

“From his flux

and not from his lesion,”

and we learn the law with regard to a zavah by means of “what do we find” from a zav.

And since this is so, it is explicitly stated in the beraita that the days of childbirth count toward the counting of seven clean days.

And Abaye

answers that there is a novelty in both expositions:

one concerns a zav, and one concerns a zavah.

And both are necessary

to state the exclusions with regard to both, because: