Niddah 37b — the Talmud in English

Had the Torah written ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

only with regard to a man with a gonorrheal discharge,

we would not have learned the same principle by analogy with a woman with a discharge.

One might have said that the verse was lenient with regard to him, allowing him to count seven clean days even when he was impure because of his skin affliction,

because

we find that the Torah was lenient with regard to him in this respect as well:

that the man with a discharge does not become impure

when the discharge resulted from an involuntary cause,

through no fault of his own.

But with regard to a woman with a discharge,

whom the Torah treated more stringently,

as she becomes impure

even

through no fault of her own, one might say that it was not lenient with her

by allowing her to count seven clean days while she is impure because of her skin affliction. Therefore,

it was necessary

to write concerning a woman with a discharge: “from her discharge and not from her affliction.”

And had the Torah written this only with regard to a woman with a discharge,

one might have said that a woman with a discharge is more leniently treated than a man with a discharge,

because

a woman with a discharge

does not become impure through the number of sightings as through the number of days.

For if she sees blood three times on the same day, she does not thereby become a woman with a discharge.

But with regard to a man with a discharge,

whose impurity is more severe,

as he becomes impure through the number of sightings as through the number of days,

so that even if he sees all three sightings of discharge on one day alone, he is impure,

one might say that the Torah was not lenient

with him by allowing him to count seven clean days while he is impure because of his skin affliction. Therefore,

it was necessary

to write concerning him: “from his discharge and not from his affliction.”

Abaye said: From where do I say this

that the days of childbirth do not count toward her counting of seven clean days?

As it was taught in a beraita: “She shall be impure through her flow”

— this includes the man who has intercourse with her.

A woman who has given birth renders the man who has intercourse with her impure, as a menstruating woman does.

“She shall be impure through her flow”

— this includes the nights,

as she is impure on them as well, and not only during “the days of her menstruation.”

“She shall be impure through her flow”

— this includes a woman who gives birth while in a state of discharge, who must sit for seven clean days!

Does this not mean

that she must sit for seven

clean days from the childbirth,

meaning that she may not count the seven clean days during the impure days of childbirth, since although she did not see blood on those days, they are nevertheless impure?!

The Gemara rejects this proof.

No!

That is not the intention of the beraita. Rather, it means that the seven days must be clean

of blood,

and childbirth blood also prevents their being counted. Although childbirth blood is not “blood of a discharge,” it interrupts the “cleanness of the days,” which must be clean of blood. However, if she did not see blood during those days, they may count toward the seven clean days!

And Abaye said: From where do I say this

that the impure days of childbirth do not count toward her counting of seven clean days?

As it was taught in a beraita: “Like the days of her menstruation”

— so are the days of her childbirth!

Just as the days of her menstruation

are not suitable for a discharge,

because the days of

menstruation always begin only after the days of discharge have ended, and a count of seven does not take place during them,

since it is never possible to count seven clean days during menstrual days: as long as she has not counted seven clean days, her status is that of a woman with a discharge.

So too the days of her childbirth

— since

they are not suitable for a discharge,

because the Torah declared childbirth blood pure from rendering her impure as a woman with a discharge,

they resemble menstrual days, during which there is no discharge. If she gives birth during her count,

a count of seven does not take place during them!

Just as a count of seven cannot take place during menstrual days.

And as for Rava,

how would he reject the proof from the explicit beraita that the days of childbirth do not count toward seven clean days?

The Gemara explains: Rava held that

this

beraita

is whose view?

It is the view of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that the impurity of childbirth also invalidates

the seven clean days that she had begun counting before childbirth; certainly, then, the impure days after childbirth do not count toward the seven clean days! But I hold in accordance with the Rabbis, who say that blood caused by labor pains and the days of childbirth do not invalidate the count; therefore, they also count toward it.

The Gemara objects: How can the days of childbirth be compared to menstrual days, and how can it be learned from menstrual days that the days of childbirth do not count toward seven clean days?

Do we really derive

the law of childbirth, which

can

occur in the middle of the count of seven clean days,

from

menstruation,

which

can

never

occur during a count?!

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami said:

It is the view of Rabbi Eliezer, who says

in tractate Menahot [19b] that indeed

one may derive what is possible from what is impossible!

And Rav Sheshet said: The Torah necessarily compared

the days of childbirth to menstruation. Through such a comparison, one may derive even something possible from something impossible, because no objection may be raised against a comparison made by the Torah.

Some say that Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami said in the name of Rav Sheshet:

It is the view of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that one may derive what is possible from what is impossible. And Rav Pappa said: The Torah necessarily compared them.

We learned in the Mishna:

“She experienced labor pains for three days and then the pain subsided, but not the blood!”

The Sages raised a question: If the pain and the blood both subsided,

meaning that both the pain and the blood stopped,

what is the law?

Rav Hisda said: She is impure!

Since the pain stopped between the sighting and the childbirth, this proves that the blood she saw during the labor pains was not caused by the childbirth.

Rabbi Hanina said: She is pure!

Since the blood stopped at the same time as the pain, this proves that the earlier sighting of blood was connected to the labor pains, and without the pain of childbirth the blood would not have appeared. It is only when the pain subsided but the blood did not that she is impure, because it becomes clear that the blood she had seen earlier was also not caused by the pain, and she is therefore a woman with a discharge.

Rabbi Hanina said: This may be compared to a king who went out, and his troops

go out

before him,

a day or two before the king arrives.

It is known that they are the king’s troops,

even though they do not arrive together with the king himself. So too with a woman who gives birth: even if both the pain and the sighting of blood subside before the childbirth, we attribute this to childbirth blood having arrived before the childbirth itself; the blood she saw was blood caused by labor pains, which the Torah declared pure.

And Rav Hisda said: All the more so, more troops must be present,

for if troops were already sent a day or two before the king’s arrival, certainly many more troops should appear immediately before the king arrives. Therefore, Rav Hisda held that if the pain and the blood subsided before the childbirth, this proves that the blood she saw earlier was not blood connected to the childbirth. Rather, it was ordinary blood of a discharge, which would have appeared even without the pain.

The Gemara challenges Rav Hisda from our Mishna:

“We learned: Rabbi Yehoshua says:

A night and a day, like the night and day of Shabbat! The pain subsided

but not the blood!”

The Gemara infers:

If

the pain subsided

and the blood also subsided

she is pure! This is a conclusive refutation of Rav Hisda!

Rav Hisda could say to you:

He stated the minimum case

when he spoke.

It is unnecessary to teach that when the pain

and the blood both subsided she is impure, because the king’s troops ceased

entirely,

whereas they should have increased

as the king’s arrival approached.

But

if the pain subsided

but not the blood, one might say that just as the blood did not stop, the labor pains also did not stop.

And the fact

that she does not feel the pain of childbirth is because

she has merely been seized by a sickness,

an illness that prevents her from feeling the pain.

It teaches us

that the subsiding of the pain proves that there is no connection between the blood she saw and the childbirth. Therefore, the blood she saw earlier renders her impure under the law of an ordinary woman with a discharge.

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Hanina from our Mishna.

We learned: “If she experienced labor pains for three days during the eleven days, and the pain subsided for a twenty-four-hour period, and she gave birth, she is a woman who gives birth while in a state of discharge.”

The Gemara discusses this:

What are the circumstances

of the expression “the pain subsided”?

If you say that it is as it is stated,

that the pain subsided but she continued to see blood until the childbirth,

why do I need three

days during which she saw blood with pain in order for her to be a woman with a discharge?

Two

days

with labor pains and one

day

without labor pains would suffice!

For even on the day when the pain subsided, she continued to see blood, and we have before us three days of discharge.

Rather, is it not saying this: She experienced labor pains for three

days

and the pain and blood both subsided, or she experienced labor pains for two days and the pain subsided

but not the blood

for a twenty-four-hour period,

while she continued to see blood on the third day, immediately before childbirth;

she is a woman who gives birth while in a state of discharge!

This is a conclusive refutation of Rabbi Hanina,

who said, “If the pain and blood both subsided, she is pure!”

Rabbi Hanina could say to you:

No! It always means as it is stated,

that she saw blood for three days with pain, and on the fourth day the pain and blood did not both subside; rather, she continued to see blood without pain.

And it teaches us

that even though the labor pains began on the third

day—she experienced pain at the beginning of the third day, but later that day and during part of the fourth day the pain and blood both subsided—

and

it follows that

the pain subsided

through the combination of most of the third day and part of the fourth day

for a twenty-four-hour period,

she is

impure!

This excludes

the

opinion of

Rabbi Hanina

son of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said above [36b] that whenever the labor pains begin on her third day, even if the entire day passes without labor pains, she is not a woman who gives birth while in a state of discharge.

We learned in the Mishna:

How long is her labor pain—

Rabbi Meir says

even forty or fifty days.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Now

even

fifty

days before the birth

is difficult; is forty days a question?

Rav Hisda said: It is not difficult; here it is referring to a sick woman,

whose labor pain is fifty days before the birth;

here it is referring to a healthy woman,

whose labor pain is only forty days.

Rabbi Levi said: The fetus does not purify

the blood of its mother who is in labor,

but

if she saw during those eleven

days fit to be zavah days,

and not during the niddah days preceding them or following them.

And Rav said:

The fetus purifies the blood of labor pain

even on days fit for the counting of zavah,

which are the seven days following the eleven days of zivah. For if she sees a discharge during the last three days of the eleven days, she counts the seven clean days after the conclusion of the eleven days, and it is found that these seven days too belong to zivah; therefore, the blood of labor pain that she sees during them is pure, even though, had she not seen at the end of her days of zivah, these days would have been niddah days!

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: And according to Rav's reasoning,

who purifies blood of labor pain at every time that belongs to the days of zivah,