Niddah 37b (לז:) — the Talmud in English

Had the Merciful One written

with regard to a zav

alone, we would not have learned the matter concerning a zava by means of a gezera shava.

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

because

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

that the zav does not become impure

through an emission that occurred

involuntarily.

But with regard to a zava,

whom the verse treated more stringently,

as she becomes impure

even

involuntarily, one might say that it does not

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

it is necessary

for the verse to write with regard to a zava: “from her flow, and not from her affliction.”

And had the Merciful One written this with regard to a zava

alone, one might have thought that a zava is more lenient than a zav,

because

a zava

does not become impure through sightings as she does through days.

For if she sees three times on the same day, she does not thereby become a zava.

But a zav,

whose impurity is more severe,

as he becomes impure through sightings as he does through days,

for even if he saw all three sightings of flux on one day alone, he is impure,

one might say that it does not

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

it is necessary

for the verse to write with regard to him: “from his flux, 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 become impure in her flow

”—to include the man who has intercourse with her.

For a woman who has given birth renders the man who has intercourse with her impure, like a menstruating woman.

“She shall become impure in her flow”

—to include the nights,

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

“She shall become impure in her flow”

—to include a woman who gives birth while in a state of ziva, who must observe seven clean days!

Does this not mean

that she must observe seven

clean days from childbirth,

and therefore may not count the seven clean days during the impure days of childbirth, since although she did not see blood during them, they are nevertheless impure?!

The Gemara rejects this interpretation

No!

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

of blood,

and even childbirth blood prevents her from counting them. Although childbirth blood is not “ziva blood,” it invalidates the “cleanness of the days,” which must be clean of blood. Indeed, if she did not see blood during them, they may count toward her 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 fit for ziva,

for the days of

menstruation always begin only after the days of ziva have ended, and a count of seven does not count from them,

so that it is never possible to count seven clean days during the days of menstruation, since as long as she has not counted seven clean days, her status is that of a zava .

So, too, the days of her childbirth—

since they

are not fit for ziva

170 ,because the Torah rendered childbirth blood pure from causing ziva impurity ,

they resemble in this respect the days of menstruation, during which there is no ziva. If she gave birth during her count,

the counting of seven does not count from them!

Just as counting seven is impossible during the days of menstruation.

And Rava—

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

The Gemara explains: Rava held that

this

beraita

is

the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that it also invalidates

the seven clean days that the woman had begun counting before childbirth; all the more so, the impure days following childbirth do not count toward seven clean days! But I follow the Sages, who say that labor blood and the days of childbirth do not invalidate the count; therefore, they also count toward it.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: How can the days of childbirth be compared to the days of menstruation, and the rule concerning the days of menstruation be used to derive that concerning the days of childbirth—that seven-day counting does not count from them?

Can one derive

childbirth, which

can

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

from

menstruation,

which

never

can

occur during a counting period?!

Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami said—

It is the opinion 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: Necessarily, the verse compared them

—the days of childbirth to menstruation. Through an analogy, one may derive even a matter that is possible from a matter that is impossible, since one may not challenge an analogy!

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

It is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that one may derive what is possible from what is impossible. And Rav Pappa said: Necessarily, the verse compared them.

We learned in the Mishna:

If she experienced labor pains for three days and then the pain ceased, but not the blood!

They raised a dilemma: If the pain ceased both in one respect and in the other

—both the pain and the blood ceased—

what is the law?

Rav Hisda said: She is impure!

Since the flow ceased between the sighting and the childbirth, it is clear that the blood she saw during the labor pains was not caused by childbirth.

Rabbi Hanina said: She is pure!

Since the blood stopped at the same time as the pain stopped, it is clear that the earlier sighting of blood was connected to the labor pains of childbirth; without the pain of childbirth, the blood would not have appeared. She is impure only when the pain ceases but the blood does not, because it becomes clear that even the blood she saw earlier was not caused by the pain, and she is therefore a zava .

Rabbi Hanina said: This is analogous to a king who set out, and his troops

set out

before him,

a day or two before the king’s arrival.

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

even though they do not arrive together with the king himself. The same applies to a woman who gives birth: even if both her pain and her blood cease before childbirth , it is attributed to childbirth blood having preceded the childbirth itself; the blood she saw was labor blood, which the Torah declared pure.

And Rav Hisda said: All the more so, the troops should be even more numerous,

for if troops were sent out already a day or two before the king’s arrival, certainly many more soldiers should appear immediately before the king arrives. Therefore, Rav Hisda maintains that if the pain and the blood ceased before childbirth, it is clear that the blood she saw earlier was not blood associated with childbirth; rather, it was ordinary ziva blood, which would have come 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 of Shabbat and its day! If the pain ceased—

but not the blood!

The Gemara infers:

This

means that if the pain ceased

both in one respect and in the other—

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

Rav Hisda could have said to you—

It was not necessary

for the Mishna to state the case explicitly.

It was not necessary to state that if the pain ceased

both in one respect and in the other she is impure, because the king’s troops ceased

entirely,

completely,

even though they should have increased as the king’s arrival approached.

But

if the pain ceased

but not the blood, one might say that just as the blood did not cease, so too the labor pains did not cease.

And

the reason she does not feel the pain of childbirth is that

she has merely been overcome by a malaise,

an illness that causes her not to feel the pain.

It teaches us

that the cessation 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 as an ordinary zava .

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 ceased for a full twenty-four hours, and she gave birth, she is a woman who gave birth while in a state of ziva.

The Gemara analyzes this:

What are the circumstances

of the phrase “the pain ceased”?

If you say it is as it is stated,

that the pain ceased but she continued to see blood until childbirth—

why do I need three

days during which she saw blood with labor pains in order for her to be a zava?

Two

days of

labor pains and one

day

without labor pains would suffice!

For even on the day when the pain ceased she continued to see blood, and there are thus three days of ziva before us.

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

days

and the pain ceased both in one respect and in the other; or she experienced labor pains for two days and the pain ceased

with regard to the pain alone

for a full twenty-four hours,

but she continued to see blood on the third day, immediately preceding childbirth—

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

This is a refutation of Rabbi Hanina,

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

Rabbi Hanina could have said to you—

No! It is always as it is stated,

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

And it teaches us

that even though the labor pains began on the third day,

since she experienced them at the beginning of the third day, but during the remainder of that day and part of the fourth day the pain and the blood both ceased,

and

it follows that

the pain ceased

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

for a full twenty-four hours—

she is

impure!

And

to exclude

the opinion of

Rabbi Hanina,

the son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother, who said above [36b] that whenever her labor pains began on her third day, even if the entire day passed without labor pains, she is not a woman who gave birth while in a state of ziva .

We learned in the Mishna:

How long is she considered to be experiencing labor pains?—

Rabbi Meir says:

even forty or fifty days.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Now,

even

fifty

days before the birth

is considered labor pains; is forty days a question?

Rav Ḥisda said: This is not difficult; here it is referring to a sick woman,

whose labor pains occur fifty days before the birth;

here it is referring to a healthy woman,

whose labor pains occur only forty days before the birth.

Rabbi Levi said: The fetus does not render pure

the blood of its mother who is experiencing labor pains,

unless

she saw blood during those eleven

days that are fit for her to be a zavah,

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

And Rav said:

The fetus renders the blood caused by labor pains pure

even during the days that are fit for counting as days of zivah,

which are the seven days following the eleven days of zivah. For if she sees a discharge of zivah during the final three days of the eleven-day period, she counts the seven clean days after the conclusion of the eleven days, and it follows that these seven days also belong to the period of zivah. Therefore, the blood caused by labor pains that she sees during them is pure, even though, had she not seen blood at the end of her days of zivah, these days would have been days of niddah!

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: And according to Rav,

who renders blood pure whenever it falls within a period belonging to the days of zivah,