Niddah 38b (לח:) — the Talmud in English

As it is taught in a beraita: The early pious men would engage in marital relations only on Wednesday,

so that

their wives would not come

to desecrating Shabbat.

That is, if the 271 days of gestation are divided by seven, the number of days in a week, the remainder is five [38+5=271:7]. Therefore, they refrained from engaging in relations on Tuesday night, so that the five days remaining at the end of the week in which she would complete thirty-eight weeks of gestation would not combine, resulting in her giving birth on Shabbat.

Similarly, they refrained from engaging in relations on Monday night, lest she give birth on the 272nd day, in which case too she would give birth on Shabbat, because the remainder would be six days [38+6=272:7], resulting in her giving birth on Shabbat.

And likewise, they refrained from engaging in relations on Saturday night, lest she give birth on the 273rd day, when the days divide evenly by seven [39=273:7], resulting in her giving birth on Shabbat.

The Gemara asks: Did they engage in relations only

on Wednesday

and

no more? After all, they could have engaged in relations from Tuesday night through the end of the week?

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 relations

from

the

day of Wednesday and onward.

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

As it is written [Ruth 4:13]:

“And the Lord granted her conception.”

The word “conception” has the numerical value of: 271.

Mar Zutra said: Even according to the one who says

that the early pious men maintained

that a woman who gives birth after nine months does not give birth before the completion of the period

but only at the end of the ninth month—

a woman who gives birth after seven months does give birth

also

before the completion of the period,

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 completion of the periods of the days, that Hannah conceived and gave birth to a son.” The minimum number of periods

is two,

and each period is three months.

The minimum number of days

is two;

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: The pain of labor cannot last 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 the time of her menstruation.”

Like the time of her menstruation, but not like the time of her ziva.

By inference,

you learn from this

that her ziva

during the pain of labor is

pure.

And

the Torah said concerning this:

How long

will her ziva remain pure?

Two weeks. 195.

The Sages taught: There can be a woman who experiences labor pains for twenty-five days, and no ziva is counted against her during them.

How so?

She experienced labor pains for

two

days

outside the time

of her menstruation, namely, at the end of the eleven days of ziva;

and seven

during the days of

menstruation

that followed;

and two

days

after menstruation, and fourteen

immediately before the birth,

which the fetus renders pure.

But it is impossible for her to experience labor pains for twenty-six days without a fetus and not be a woman who gives birth as a zava.

For if one subtracts from the twenty-six days the seven days of menstruation and the fourteen days before the birth, five days remain. Of these, at least three consecutive days must fall within the impure days of ziva.

The Gemara asks: If she saw blood

without a fetus, then

even

three

days after menstruation

would suffice! Rav Sheshet said: Say instead: In a case where there is a fetus.

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

Rather, Rava said: This is what it means: It is impossible for her to experience labor pains for twenty-six days, in a case where there is a fetus, and not be a woman who gives birth as a zava.

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

even after three days she is a zava.

What is the reason?

There are no labor pains with miscarriages.

Mishna:

A woman who experiences labor pains

to give birth

within the eighty days of

the birth of a

female [namely, 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,

because it is blood of purity throughout the sixty-six days,

until the fetus emerges. And Rabbi Eliezer deems it impure,

because he maintains that it is not blood of purity, since she saw it while experiencing labor pains, and blood of purity does not come with labor pains.

However, she is pure with regard to the impurity of ziva, because the Torah rendered pure ziva that comes during the pain of labor.

They said to Rabbi Eliezer: If, in a case in which the Torah was stringent

with

blood discharged normally,

rendering it impure—for example, any woman who has given birth after the days of purity, who becomes impure as a zava if she sees blood flowing normally for three days—

it was lenient

with regard to it

in the case of blood accompanied by labor pains,

rendering it pure from the impurity of ziva,

then, when a woman sees blood accompanied by labor pains within the eighty days of purity, which is

a case in which the Torah was lenient

with regard to her, rendering it pure from all impurities, even

in the case of normally discharged blood—

is it not logical that we should be lenient

during these days

with regard to

one who sees

blood accompanied by labor pains,

rendering it pure?!

Rabbi Eliezer said to them:

The blood accompanied by labor pains during the days of purity, which

comes from the derivation

of the blood accompanied by labor pains that she saw before the birth—

“comes from the derivation”

of the blood accompanied by labor pains that she saw before the birth—

is enough for it to be like the case from which it is derived,

namely, like the blood accompanied by labor pains before the birth.

From what was the Torah lenient with regard to her,

in the case of one who sees blood accompanied by labor pains before the birth? It rendered her pure

from the impurity of ziva

alone;

but

she remains

impure with the impurity of menstruation. Therefore, blood accompanied by labor pains during the days of purity also renders her impure with the impurity of menstruation if she saw it during her days of menstruation,

because we have not derived by a kal va-chomer that the Torah rendered blood accompanied by labor pains pure from the impurity of menstruation.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: It is stated [Leviticus 12:5]:

It is stated [Leviticus 12:5]:

“She shall remain”

“with the blood of her purity.” They expounded that the word “she shall remain” is superfluous and comes

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

And Rabbi Eliezer deems

the blood that she saw with labor pains during these days impure.

They said to Rabbi Eliezer: If, in a case in which the Torah was stringent with

blood

discharged normally before the fetus,

rendering it impure as ziva—

it was lenient with

blood

discharged normally after the fetus,

rendering it pure from the impurity of ziva when she saw it within the full period of the days of purity,

in a case in which the Torah was lenient with

blood

accompanied by labor pains before the fetus,

rendering it pure from ziva—

is it not logical that we should be lenient

when she sees

blood accompanied by labor pains after the fetus,

within the full period of the days of purity?

He said to them: The blood accompanied by labor pains during the days of purity, which

“comes from the derivation,”

from the blood accompanied by labor pains before the birth—

is enough for it to be like the case from which it is derived,

the blood accompanied by labor pains before the birth.

From what was the Torah lenient with regard to her

with the blood accompanied by labor pains before the birth?

It was lenient

with regard to the impurity of ziva, but she becomes impure with the impurity of menstruation.

Therefore, after the birth as well, blood accompanied by labor pains renders her impure with the impurity of menstruation.

They said to him: We have another reply to you,

that we do not derive the case of labor pains after the birth from the case of labor pains before it, since in response to every argument you have raised that it is enough for what is derived to be like the source, we have an answer.

Rather, we derive the case of blood accompanied by labor pains after the birth from the case of blood discharged normally after it, which is entirely pure, and apply it to blood accompanied by labor pains after it. The refutation of “it is enough” does not apply to this argument. This is how we reason:

And if, in a case in which the Torah was stringent,

when she sees

blood discharged normally

during the days

before the fetus, the Torah

nevertheless

was lenient with

the

blood accompanied by labor pains that occurs with it—

during the days of purity, which are

a case in which the Torah was lenient, even when she sees

even when she sees

blood discharged normally after the fetus—

is it not logical that we should be lenient with regard to the labor pains that occur with it?

That is, we should derive the leniency concerning blood accompanied by labor pains during the days of purity from the leniency concerning normally discharged blood during those days. Seeing blood during the days of purity involves a greater leniency than blood accompanied by labor pains before the fetus, because during the days of purity the blood is entirely pure.

Rabbi Eliezer said to them:

Even if

you reply throughout the entire day,

I remain with the argument that I presented to you:

It is enough for what is derived from the law to be like the case from which it is derived!

For

from what was the Torah lenient with regard to her—

that is, in what respect is the status of the blood she sees during the days of purity more lenient than that of blood accompanied by labor pains before the birth, if not that the blood before the birth is pure only

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

whereas blood of purity is entirely pure?

If so, when you seek to reason that one should be lenient with regard to blood accompanied by labor pains during the days of purity, the entire basis of the leniency is the comparison to blood accompanied by labor pains before the birth. Therefore, it is enough that the blood accompanied by labor pains after the birth should render her impure with the impurity of menstruation, like the blood accompanied by labor pains before the birth.

Rava said: With this

following argument,

Rabbi Eliezer was able to defeat

and overcome

the Rabbis:

But

did you not say

with regard to blood accompanied by labor pains before the birth, that its purity is derived from the exposition of the word

“her blood”—

“her blood caused by herself

is impure,”

but not blood caused by a fetus?

If so,

here too, with regard to blood accompanied by labor pains after the birth, one should expound a similar verse stated concerning it [ibid. 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 purified from the source of her blood”—

“her blood”

that she sees

caused by herself, but not caused by

the labor pains of a

fetus!

The verse thus teaches that blood accompanied by labor pains during the days of purity is impure.

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Eliezer, who deems the blood accompanied by labor pains that she sees during the days of purity impure.

And

say: During the days of menstruation—

menstruating; during the days of ziva—

pure!

That is, if she sees blood accompanied by labor pains for seven days during the days of purity, she becomes impure, and then immerses and becomes pure, despite the fact that the blood continues to emerge. Since she is not impure as a zava, it would be appropriate to render the continuation of the blood she saw during the days fit for ziva pure.

The Gemara answers:

The verse says:

“She shall remain”—

one state of remaining for

the

blood in its entirety.

The Torah revealed that all of it has the same legal status: 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,”

when, if she sees blood during it, she is considered a

“menstruating woman.”

The second is

“outside the time of her menstruation,”

when, if she sees blood during it,

she

is considered a

“zava.”

As the verse states [Leviticus 15:25]:

“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 form a cycle of eighteen days,

which begins with seven days of menstruation

and ends with eleven days of ziva.

A woman who sees menstrual blood for the first time

thereby begins the cycle of eighteen days.

During the first seven days, the seeing of blood is considered the seeing of menstrual blood,

because this 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 blood during days that are not

“the time of her menstruation,”

which are

“the days fit for ziva.”

From this point onward,

after the completion of the eleven days fit for ziva,

the period of

“the days fit for menstruation”

begins again. But she does not immediately begin counting

“the seven days of menstruation”;

rather, only when she sees blood again,

blood,

even if she sees blood only after many days,

does the cycle of eighteen days begin anew,

beginning with seven days of menstruation

and ending with eleven days of ziva.

The sighting of blood during the eleven days designated for zivah is divided into two cases:

The first,

the sighting of blood for one or two days,

at which point the woman becomes a "

minor zavah,"

and she must observe one day free of blood

in order to become tahor.

The second,

the sighting of blood for three consecutive days,

at which point she becomes "

a major zavah,"

and she must observe seven blood-free days

in order to become tahor.

We learn from this that there are three distinct sets of laws concerning a woman who sees blood:

a.

A niddah:

Whenever a woman begins to see blood,

she is a niddah,

and she is impure for seven days,

whether she saw one drop of blood once and then did not see any more,

or whether blood flowed continuously 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 day

and is tahor.

b.

A minor zavah:

It is a halakha given to Moses from Sinai

[below, 72b],

that the eleven days following the seven days of niddah impurity

are "

the days of zivah,"

and they are called the "

eleven days of zivah."

If she sees blood on one or two of those days,

she must observe one day free of blood,

after which she can become tahor,

and this is a

minor zavah,

as

it is stated concerning her that she "

observes one clean day free of blood"

as

corresponding to the day on which she saw zavah blood."

c.

A major zavah:

If she sees blood during the days of zivah for

three consecutive days,

she is a

major zavah.

Her law is that

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

and then she may immerse

and become tahor.

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 status,

and is impure for

seven days,

after which there are again

eleven days of zivah.

But as long as she has not seen blood,

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

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

At the beginning of her seeing blood, she has

seven days of niddah impurity,

followed by

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 following the days of zivah are called "

days designated for niddah,"

even though she is tahor during them

and is not impure with niddah impurity,

because if she sees blood during these days,

she again becomes impure with niddah impurity;

therefore these days are called "

days designated for niddah."

Mishna:

a.

Throughout all eleven days

following the seven days of niddah, during which she saw blood

, she is presumed tahor.

This is because it is not customary for a woman to see blood during the days of zivah [and the Gemara will explain what practical difference this entails].