Niddah 37a — the Talmud in English

Shila went

bar Avina,

and said to his wife: “Prepare burial garments for me,

[he asked his wife to prepare burial garments for him],

so that

Rav Asi will not go

and tell Rav words against me

when I am not there!

His wife did according to his wish, and

she prepared burial garments for him. Shila died!

Those present

at the funerals of Rav Asi and Shila bar Avina, which took place simultaneously,

saw that the myrtle branch flew from this bier to that bier

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

They said: -

Conclude from this that the Sages made peace

[between them]!

Rava inquired:

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

of labor—

what is the halakha: does

the sight of blood of labor

invalidate

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

The sides of the doubt are:

Does every

thing that causes impurity invalidate

the counting of seven clean days, even blood that does not cause impurity as ziva, because it is sufficient that it causes impurity in other contexts for its sight to invalidate the count of the clean days?

And this

blood of labor

also causes impurity like the days of menstruation

[since the Torah purified it only during the days of ziva], and it will invalidate the counting of a zava .

Or perhaps—

only

something that causes

the impurity of ziva

invalidates

the count of seven clean days,

and this

blood of labor

is not a cause,

since it does not cause impurity as ziva. For one who sees blood of 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 in ziva proves it—

for 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 Zavim [2b]: if a zav saw, within the seven clean days, a sight of zov, even involuntarily, he invalidates his count and must begin counting another seven clean days!

He said to him

Rava to Abaye:

Indeed!

[your words are not correct], for in truth

this,

involuntary zov,

also

is considered

a “cause”

of ziva.

For we learned

[Zavim, there]:

With the first sight—

they examine him

to determine whether it was involuntary or not.

With the second—

they examine him,

in order to make him a complete zav, who requires counting seven clean days for his purification; but with the

third

sight, which obligates him to bring an offering—

they do not examine him,

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

And conclude from this that even an involuntary sight “causes ziva,” since his ziva joins [the other sights] to obligate a zav to bring an offering!

Abaye returned and asked:

And according to Rabbi Eliezer, who says that even with the third sight they examine him,

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

is it likewise, since it does not cause

the blood that he saw involuntarily to incur an offering for ziva, that it

also does not invalidate

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

He said to him

Rava to Abaye:

According to Rabbi Eliezer, indeed so,

for since blood seen involuntarily does not cause an offering for ziva, it also does not invalidate the count of the clean days for purification from ziva.

Come and hear

against Rava, for it was taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer says—

even with the third sight they examine him,

to obligate him to bring an offering. But

with the fourth they do not examine him!

Is it not

the question whether “they examine him with the fourth” means

for invalidation

of the count of the clean days? For with regard to making him a complete zav and obligating him to bring an offering, there is no reason to examine him, since he has already become impure and become obligated in an offering through the first three sights. Conclude from this that according to Rabbi Eliezer an involuntary sight invalidates the count of seven clean days, even though it does not cause ziva.

The Gemara rejects this:

No!

This is not proof, for it may be said that the question whether they examine him with the fourth means

to render that drop

of zov

impure through carrying,

to teach us that even if its sight was involuntary, it renders impure the one who carries it.

Come and hear: With the third—

Rabbi Eliezer says: they examine him; with the fourth—

they do not examine him.

For Rabbi Eliezer would say:

“For the offering I said

that they examine him with the third,

but not for invalidation!”

Therefore there is no need to examine him with the fourth, for it is useful only to invalidate the count of the clean days!

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

Rather,

the Gemara concludes:

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

invalidates!

The Gemara still discusses:

And according to the Rabbis, what

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

Come and hear

that it does not invalidate,

for the father of Rabbi Avin taught

[in explanation of the distinction between a sight of semen during the seven clean days of a zav, which invalidates only the day of the sight, and a sight of zov, which invalidates the entire count of the days]:

What caused his zov—

the impurity of

seven days; therefore it invalidates

the zov, the entire count of

seven

clean days.

What caused his semen—

the impurity of

one day; therefore it invalidates

the semen

one day

alone from the count of the clean days.

What is the meaning of “

what

caused

him his zov—

seven”?

If you say that it causes seven-day impurity,

why did he use the expression “what

caused

him”?

This should have been what ‘his zov is impure for seven days’ needs to say.

That is, this is what he should have said.

Rather, is it not

the reason he used the expression “caused” is to teach us that only

something that causes—

invalidates; something that does not cause—

does not invalidate!

And we conclude:

Conclude from this

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

Abaye said: We have established

as the halakha:

Labor does not invalidate with regard to ziva!

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

that is Rabbi Eliezer,

who said that even an involuntary sight invalidates the counting of seven clean days.

It was taught: Rabbi Marinus says—

Childbirth does not invalidate with regard to ziva—

a zava counting seven clean days for her ziva gave birth during those days and did not see blood during the childbirth childbirth does not invalidate the count of the clean days.

It was posed to them: What is the ruling: does childbirth count

toward the count of a zava?

That is: a zava who gave birth, and did not see blood during the days of childbirth impurity—is it the case that 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 part of the seven clean days?

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

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

The dispute between Abaye and Rava concerns a zava who began counting seven clean days and gave birth, and both agree that the impurity of childbirth itself does not invalidate the count of the clean days. Rather, they dispute whether it is also possible to count the days of childbirth themselves as clean days, or whether it is sufficient that we do not invalidate the preceding days because of the impurity of childbirth, but the impure days of childbirth cannot join the clean days of “purity” before the birth; therefore, after the days of childbirth pass, she completes the days lacking from her count.

Rava said: From where do I say it

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

For it was taught:

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

and afterward she shall become pure.”

They expounded it:

“Afterward”—

after

she counts

all of them—

all seven clean days—

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

If you say, granted,

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 count of seven clean days: since

impurity does not interrupt,

because the days of childbirth, despite being “days of impurity” themselves, join the seven clean days.

But if you say

childbirth

does not count—the days of childbirth impurity cannot join the number of seven clean days—then it turns out that

childbirth

interrupts it with regard to the count of seven clean days, for she cannot count the seven days as one; and here there is no “afterward, all of them.” Why, then, should it not invalidate the entire count?

count of seven clean days, since she cannot count the seven days as one continuous unit. Thus there is no “after all of them,” so why should it not invalidate the entire count?

And Abaye could say to you—

the verse “afterward, all of them” does not exclude merely an interruption in the count of the days; and indeed she can join the clean days before her childbirth to the clean days that she will count after the days of childbirth impurity, since she did not see blood either in her childbirth or during the days of childbirth impurity. Rather, the verse comes only to teach

that the impurity of zivah shall not interrupt between them,

but an interruption consisting of the days of childbirth impurity does not invalidate, because they neither invalidate nor count!

Therefore,

Rava said: From where do I say it

that childbirth does not invalidate and counts?

For it was taught

concerning the beginning of the aforementioned verse: “And if she becomes pure

from her zavah,

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

“from her zavah”—

and not from her nega!

That is, even a zava who is afflicted with tzaraat can count seven clean days, bring the offering of a zava, and become pure so as not to impart impurity to the man with whom she has intercourse, even though she is still impure with the impurity of tzaraat. And they further expounded:

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

A zava who gave birth in the middle of counting seven clean days can continue counting the clean days even during the days of childbirth impurity, because the count is for purification from her zavah, and not for purification from her childbirth!

It is thus proven that the days of childbirth do not invalidate, and also count toward the number of seven clean days!

And Abaye could say to you:

The wording of the baraita should be corrected as follows:

Teach

one exposition

only

:

“From her zavah

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

“and not from her childbirth”!

And one cannot prove Rava’s view from it.

And Rava

said:

What is this?

It is impossible to change the wording of the baraita according to Abaye’s version, for

if you say, granted,

that we read in the latter part of the baraita

“from her zavah and not from her childbirth,”

it is understandable why in the first part we taught, “from her zavah and not from her nega.” For although we find [nearby] another teaching for this matter, nevertheless the tannaitic authority taught us, “from her zavah—and not from her nega.” Because

since it was necessary for him

to inform us that

childbirth

does not interrupt,

he taught

also

her nega

[that the impurity of negaim does not invalidate purification from zivah]

along with childbirth.

But if you say

like Abaye, who read in the baraita only the first part,

“from her zavah and not from her nega,”

and this is the entire novelty of the baraita—

this

exposition is not needed at all, because

from

the verse [there, 13],

“and when the zav becomes pure from his zavah” is derived!

For we expound

“from his zavah—

and not from his nega,”

and we learn the case of a zava from a zav by “what we find” reasoning.

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

And Abaye

answers that there is a novelty in both teachings:

one concerning a zav, and one concerning a zava.

And they are necessary

to write the exclusions in both of them, because: