Niddah 38b — the Talmud in English

For it was taught: The early pious men would engage in marital relations only on the fourth day of the week,

so that

their wives would not come ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

to desecration of Shabbat.

That is, if the two hundred and seventy-one days of pregnancy are divided by seven, which is the number of days in the week, there is a remainder of five [38+5=271:7]. Therefore, they refrained from engaging in marital relations on the night leading into Tuesday, so that the five days remaining at the end of the week in which thirty-eight weeks of pregnancy would be completed would not join together, resulting in her giving birth on Shabbat.

And likewise they refrained from engaging in marital relations on the night leading into Monday, lest she give birth on the two hundred and seventy-second day, in which case too she would give birth on Shabbat, because there would be a remainder of six days [38+6=272:7], resulting in her giving birth on Shabbat.

And likewise they refrained from engaging in marital relations on the conclusion of Shabbat, because perhaps she would give birth on the two hundred and seventy-third day, when the days are divided exactly by seven [39=273:7], resulting in her giving birth on Shabbat.

The Gemara asks: Did they engage in marital relations only

on Wednesday

and

no more,

when they could have engaged in marital relations from the night leading into Wednesday until the end of the week?

The Gemara explains:

Say:

that they engaged in marital relations

f

rom

Wednesday onward.

Mar Zutra said: What is the reason of the early pious men?

As it is written [Ruth 4:13]:

“And the Lord gave her conception”—

“conception” has the numerical value: two hundred and seventy-one.

Mar Zutra said: Even according to the one who says

that the early pious men held

that a woman who gives birth after nine months does not give birth during incomplete periods

but only at the end of the ninth month—

a woman who gives birth after seven months gives birth

also

during incomplete periods,

and it is possible that she will give birth even at the beginning of the seventh month.

As it is stated [I Samuel 1:20]:

“And it came to pass at the cycles of the days, and Hannah conceived and gave birth to a son.” The minimum of “cycles”

is two,

and each cycle is three months.

The minimum of “days”

is two,

so it follows that she gave birth four days after the beginning of the seventh month.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: There is no labor pain for more than two weeks.

Shmuel said: What is the reason of the Rabbis?

As it is written [Leviticus 12:5]:

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

like her menstruation and not like her ziva.

By implication

you learn from this—

her ziva

during the time of labor pain

is pure.

A

nd concerning this the Torah said:

How much

time is her ziva to be pure?

Two weeks 195 .

The Sages taught: There is a woman who has labor pain for twenty-five days, and no ziva arises during them.

How so?

She had labor pain for

two

days

outside the time

of her menstruation, that is, at the end of the eleven days of ziva,

and seven

during the days of

menstruation

following them,

and two

days

after menstruation, and fourteen

close to the birth,

when the fetus renders her pure.

And it is impossible for her to have labor pain for twenty-six days without a fetus and not be a woman who gives birth in ziva.

For if one deducts from the twenty-six days the seven days of menstruation and the fourteen days preceding the birth, five days remain. Of these, at least three consecutive days will be during the impure days of ziva.

The Gemara asks: If she saw

without a fetus,

then

three

days after menstruation

would also suffice! Rav Sheshet said: Say: in a place where there is a fetus.

Rava said to him: But it teaches “without a fetus”!

Rather, Rava said: This is what it means: It is impossible for her to have labor pain for twenty-six days in a place where there is a fetus and not be a woman who gives birth in ziva.

And in a place where there is no fetus, but rather a miscarriage—

she is also a zava after three days.

What is the reason?—

There is no labor pain for miscarriages.

Mishna:

A woman who has labor pain

to give birth

within the eighty days of

the birth of a

female [and this is, for example, when the second fetus was delayed in emerging, or when she became pregnant again and now miscarried]—

all the blood that she sees is pure,

all the blood that she sees is pure

because it is pure blood during the sixty-six days,

until the fetus emerges. And Rabbi Eliezer declares her impure

with the impurity of menstruation, because this is not pure blood, since she saw it with labor pain, and pure blood does not come with labor pain. But with the impurity of ziva she is pure, because the Torah declared pure ziva that comes during the labor pain of childbirth.

They said to Rabbi Eliezer: And if, in a place where Scripture was stringent

on

ordinary blood

to render it impure—for example, every woman after the days of purity, who, if she sees blood for three days in an ordinary manner, becomes impure as a zava—

Scripture was lenient

concerning it

in the case of blood of labor pain

to render it pure from ziva.

If so, a woman who sees blood of labor pain within the eighty days of purity, which is

a place where Scripture was lenient

concerning it, to render it pure from all impurities, and even

in the case of ordinary blood— -

is it not logical that we should be lenient

during these days

with

a woman who sees

blood of labor pain

to render it pure?!

He said to them,

Rabbi Eliezer:

It is sufficient for the

blood of labor pain of the days of purity, which

comes from the logical inference

from the blood of labor pain that she saw before childbirth,

to be like the subject of the inference,

the blood of labor pain before childbirth.

From what was he lenient concerning her,

the woman who sees blood of labor pain before childbirth? To render her pure

from the impurity of ziva

alone;

but

she is

impure with the impurity of menstruation. If so, blood of labor pain during the days of purity will likewise render her impure with the impurity of menstruation if she saw it during the days of menstruation

because we have not learned by a kal va-chomer that Scripture rendered blood of labor pain pure from the impurity of menstruation.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 12:5]:

“She shall remain”

concerning “the blood of her purity.” And they expounded that the word “she shall remain” is superfluous and comes

to include a woman who has labor pain within the eighty days of the birth of a female, that all blood she sees is pure, until the fetus emerges.

And Rabbi Eliezer declares impure

the blood that she saw with labor pain during these days.

They said to Rabbi Eliezer: And if, in a place where Scripture was stringent concerning

the blood of

ordinary blood before the fetus

to render it impure as ziva—

it was lenient concerning

the blood of

ordinary blood after the fetus

to render it pure from the impurity of ziva when she saw it within the full period of the days of purity.

A place where it was lenient concerning

the blood of

labor pain before the fetus

to render it pure from ziva—

is it not logical that we should be lenient

when she sees

with labor pain after the fetus,

within the full period of the days of purity?

He said to them: It is sufficient for the

blood of labor pain within the days of purity, which

comes from the logical inference,

from the blood of labor pain before childbirth,

to be like the subject of the inference,

the blood of labor pain before childbirth.

From what was he lenient concerning her,

with blood of labor pain before childbirth?

From the impurity of ziva, but she becomes impure with the impurity of menstruation;

therefore, even after childbirth, blood of labor pain renders her impure with the impurity of menstruation.

They said to him: We can indeed answer you with another formulation,

that we are not learning from labor pain before childbirth to labor pain after childbirth, for concerning every [such inference] you have come with the argument that it is sufficient for what comes from the inference to be like the subject of the inference.

Rather, we are learning from ordinary blood after childbirth, which is entirely pure, to blood of labor pain after childbirth. Concerning this there is no refutation of “it is sufficient.” And this is how we reason:

And if, in a place where Scripture was stringent,

when she sees

in an ordinary manner

during the days

before the fetus—

nevertheless

it was lenient concerning

blood

of labor pain accompanying it—

during the days of purity, which are

a place where it was lenient,

even when she sees

in an ordinary manner after the fetus—

is it not logical that we should be lenient concerning labor pain accompanying it?

That is, we should learn the leniency of blood of labor pain during the days of purity from the leniency of seeing in an ordinary manner during these days. Seeing during the days of purity has a greater leniency than blood of labor pain before the fetus, because during the days of purity the blood is entirely pure.

Rabbi Eliezer said to them

Rabbi Eliezer:

Even if you answer me all day long,

I remain with the argument that I presented to you:

It is sufficient for what comes from the inference to be like the subject of the inference!

For

from what was he lenient concerning her,

that is, in what respect is the law of the blood she saw during the days of purity more lenient than the blood of labor pain before childbirth? If not in this respect: The blood before childbirth is pure only

from the impurity of ziva, but it renders her impure with the impurity of menstruation,

whereas pure blood is entirely pure.

If so, when you come to reason concerning blood of labor pain during the days of purity, that one should be lenient concerning it, the entire leniency is based on the comparison with blood of labor pain before childbirth. If so, it is sufficient for the blood of labor pain after childbirth to render her impure with the impurity of menstruation, like the blood of labor pain before it.

Rava said: With this

argument below,

they were defeated—

he was able to defeat—

Rabbi Eliezer defeated the Rabbis:

But

did you not say

concerning the blood of labor pain before childbirth, that we learn its purity from the exposition

“her blood”—

her blood that comes on her own

renders her impure,

and not blood that comes on account of the fetus?

If so,

here too, concerning the blood of labor pain after childbirth, one should expound from a similar verse stated concerning it [there, verse 7]:

with regard to blood caused by labor after birth, we should derive from a similar verse stated there [ibid. 7]:

“And she shall be pure from the source of her blood”—

her blood

that she saw

on her own, and not on account of

labor pain of

the fetus!

And Scripture teaches that blood of labor pain during the days of purity is impure.

The Gemara raises an objection against Rabbi Eliezer, who declares impure the blood of labor pain that she saw during the days of purity.

And

say: During the days of menstruation—

menstrual blood; during the days of ziva—

pure!

That is, if she sees blood of labor pain for seven days during the days of purity, she becomes impure, and afterward immerses and becomes pure, despite the fact that the blood continues to emerge. Since she is not impure with ziva, it is appropriate to render the continuation of the blood that she saw during the days suitable for ziva pure.

The Gemara answers:

The verse says:

“She shall remain”—

one state of remaining for

the blood

all of it.

The Torah revealed that all of it should be equal in its law; that is, either all of it is impure or all of it is pure.

Introduction

The seeing of menstrual blood is divided into two periods:

The first is

“the time of her menstruation,”

for if she sees blood during it, she is considered

“menstruating.”

And the second is

“outside the time of her menstruation,”

for if she sees blood during it,

she is

considered

“a zava.”

And as the wording of the verse [Leviticus 15:25] says:

“And if a woman has a discharge of her blood for many days,”

“outside the time of her menstruation.”

The days of menstruation and ziva are a cycle of eighteen days,

whose beginning is seven days of menstruation,

and whose end is eleven days of ziva.

A woman who sees menstrual blood for the first time

begins with this the cycle of eighteen days,

as during the first seven days the seeing of the blood is considered seeing of menstrual blood,

because then it is

“the time of her menstruation.”

And if she sees blood during any of the eleven days that follow them,

she will be a zava,

because she saw during days that are not

“the time of her menstruation,”

which are

“the days suitable for ziva.”

From here onward,

after the completion of the eleven days suitable for ziva,

the period of

“the days suitable for menstruation”

begins again. But she does not immediately begin the counting of

“the seven days of menstruation,”

but only when she again sees

blood.

Even if she sees blood only after many days,

only then does the cycle of eighteen days begin anew,

whose beginning is seven days of menstruation,

and whose end is eleven days of ziva.

The seeing of blood during the eleven days fit for zivah is divided into two categories:

The first,

seeing blood for one or two days,

so that the woman becomes a "

minor zavah",

and she must observe one day in cleanliness from blood

and become pure.

And the second,

seeing blood for three consecutive days,

so that she becomes "

a major zavah",

and she must observe seven days clean of blood

and become pure.

We have learned that there are three distinct sets of laws concerning a woman who sees blood:

A.

A niddah:

Every woman, when she begins to see blood,

is a niddah,

and she is impure for seven days,

whether she saw a drop of blood one time and then did not see again,

or whether blood flowed from her throughout all seven days,

provided that she stopped seeing blood before the end of the seventh day;

she immerses on the night of the eighth,

and is pure.

B.

A minor zavah:

It is a halakha given to Moses at Sinai

[below, 72b],

that the eleven days after the seven days of impurity of the niddah

are "

days of zivah",

and they are called eleven "

days of zivah";

if she sees blood during them for one or two days,

she must observe one day in cleanliness from blood,

and afterward she can become pure,

and this is a

minor zavah,

who

is said to "

observe one day clean of blood"

opposite

the day on which she saw zivah blood".

C.

A major zavah:

If she sees blood during the days of zivah for three

consecutive days,

she is a

major zavah.

And its law is:

after she stops seeing, she must count seven days clean of blood,

and then she can immerse

and become pure.

After the eleven

days of zivah have passed,

when she begins to see blood,

even after many days,

she returns again to the beginning of her niddah,

and is impure for seven

days,

and after them again eleven

days of zivah.

But so long as she has not seen,

she does not return to the count of the days of niddah and zivah.

And it follows that the order of the days for a woman is as follows:

At the beginning of her seeing she has seven

days of impurity of niddah,

and afterward eleven

days whose law is that they are

days of

zivah,

and it is the nature of women that it is uncommon for them to see blood during these eleven

days].

The days that follow the days of zivah are called "

days fit for niddah",

even though she is pure during them,

and she is not impure with the impurity of niddah,

because if she sees blood during these days,

she again becomes impure with the impurity of niddah;

therefore these days are called "

days fit for niddah".

Mishna:

a.

All eleven days

that follow the seven days of niddah, during which she saw blood

, she is presumed pure.

Since it is not usual for a woman to see blood during the days of zivah [and the Gemara will explain what practical difference this makes].