Niddah 54b — the Talmud in English

The days of childbirth,

which are seven for a male and fourteen for a female,

during which she does not see

blood,

what is the ruling regarding their counting toward her ziva count

of seven clean days?

And this is speaking of a case where she gave birth while she was a zava, and immediately after the birth she ceased seeing blood, and the uncertainty is whether she can count the seven clean days of a zava within the days of impurity of a woman who has given birth.

And this is similar to our uncertainty concerning a zava: whether she can count the seven clean days within the days of impurity of her niddah, when she does not see blood during them.

Rav Kahana said: ta shma

from what we learned in a beraita:

If she saw for two

days blood, during the eleven days of her ziva days,

and on the third she miscarried,

but

she does not know what she miscarried,

whether it was a fetus or something that is not considered a fetus,

she is a case of uncertain ziva and uncertain childbirth.

There are four possibilities before us: on the third day she

a. gave birth to a fetus without seeing blood, and it follows that she is impure because of childbirth and not because of ziva. For she did not see blood for three days.

b. did not give birth to a fetus, but saw blood with the opening of the womb, and it follows that she is a zava and not a woman who has given birth.

c. saw blood with the birth of a fetus, and it follows that she is both a woman who has given birth and a zava.

d. did not give birth to a fetus and did not see blood, and it follows that she is neither a woman who has given birth nor a zava.

And therefore, she is impure with the impurity of childbirth for two weeks because of the uncertainty, lest she miscarried a female fetus. And likewise, whenever she sees blood, she is a case of uncertain ziva, and she cannot become pure except after counting, from when the blood ceased, seven clean days.

And likewise she

brings an offering,

and it is an uncertain offering of a zava, an uncertain offering of a woman who has given birth, and an unconsecrated offering,

and

therefore

it may not be eaten!

And the beraita teaches an additional novelty:

and the days of

uncertain

childbirth, during which she does not see

blood,

count toward her ziva count!

And it is demonstrated from here that although there is a side of the uncertainty that she is both a woman who has given birth and a zava, nevertheless the days of the impurity of childbirth count for her toward the counting of seven clean days.

Rav Pappa said:

There is no proof from this beraita. For

there it is different, since it can be said that she is a woman who gave birth to a male,

and nevertheless she sits in uncertainty for fourteen days of impurity; therefore,

all these extra seven days that we give her count for her ziva count!

Since she observes the days of the impurity of childbirth of a female only because of the uncertainty, she can count them also as seven clean days for her ziva.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa:

But is it only

in the case of a woman who gave birth to a male that there is uncertainty,

and

in the case of a woman who gave birth to a female there is no uncertainty?

For it is possible that she gave birth to a female, and then these seven days as well are days of the impurity of childbirth; and how, in your view, can she count them as days of counting seven clean days, unless it is said that they can always be counted toward the counting of seven clean days!?

Rather, is it not to be inferred from here that they count

for her—the days of the impurity of her childbirth during which she does not see blood—toward the counting of the seven clean days of a zava?

And we conclude: Indeed,

it is to be inferred from here!

And the Gemara continues to bring the continuation of the beraita on the previous page:

And if the woman’s pattern was

nine impure days and nine pure days, she engages in marital relations for eight days out of eighteen days.

For after subtracting the seven days of niddah from the nine impure days, only two days of ziva remain, and she must observe the following day according to the law of one who observes one day corresponding to one day, and eight permissible days remain for her; and she will never become a major zava.

And after she again begins to see after eighteen days have passed from the beginning of the first seeing, the days of niddah again begin, and the law returns to what it was in the first cycle, and so forever.

And if her pattern was

ten impure days and ten pure days, her days of permitted marital relations are like her days of ziva.

For of the ten impure days, seven are days of niddah and three are days of ziva. And of the ten days, seven are days of counting seven clean days and three days are permitted for marital relations.

And likewise for one hundred.

Seven of the one hundred impure days are days of niddah and ninety-three are days of ziva; and likewise, seven of the pure days are days of counting seven clean days and ninety-three days are permitted for marital relations. It follows that the number of days during which she is a zava is equal to the number of days during which she is pure.

And likewise for one thousand.

We shall return to you, chapter Ba Siman.

Mishnah:

Menstrual blood and the flesh of a corpse render impure, and render dry things impure

but the discharge

drops of semen that issue from a man who has a discharge

and the nasal mucus —

the spittle of a man who has a discharge that issues through coughing, or the mucus of the nose.

And the spittle

of a man who has a discharge,

and the creeping creature, and the carcass, and semen render moist things impure, but do not render dry things impure. And if they can be soaked and return to their former state

that is, they can, through soaking in water, return to being moist as they were,

they render moist things impure and render dry things impure.

And how much is their soaking?

That if they return through this soaking to the state in which they were, their law is like that of moist things?!

In lukewarm water for a twenty-four-hour period

through soaking them in lukewarm water for a twenty-four-hour period.

Rabbi Yosei says: The flesh of a corpse that is dry and cannot be soaked and return to the state in which it was is pure

from rendering impure with an olive-sized portion.

Gemara:

From where are these words

that menstrual blood renders through contact and carrying?

Hezekiah said: For the verse says, “And she who is ill in her menstruation”; the ill thing is like her: just as she renders impure, so too the ill thing

renders impure.

The Gemara asks:

We have found [the law regarding] moist [blood],

blood;

from where do we derive [the law regarding] dry [blood]? Rabbi Yitzhak said: The verse says “shall be”: it shall remain as it is.

The Gemara asks:

And say that these words apply when [blood] was moist and became dry; but dry from the outset, from where [do we derive that it is impure]?!

And if you would say that this too is so, that blood dry from the outset does not render impure —

and furthermore

3 , as we learned: [In the case of] a woman who miscarries something resembling a shell

or

something resembling earth

red, or

something resembling a hair

red, or

something resembling red gnats —

she shall cast

what she miscarried

into water.

And

if they dissolve —

they are blood

impure!

And it is proven that blood dry from the outset is also impure once it dissolves. And the question returns to its place —

from where

[do we derive] this? “

Blood

shall be

of her discharge” —

it is an inclusion.

And we raised the matter: Let us say:

If she

the menstruant herself

makes a couch and seat to render a person and garments impure, then her blood too

makes

[a couch and seat], rendering one who touches it impure with an impurity resembling the impurity of

couch and seat,

which is severe, according to the law of a primary source of impurity,

to render a person and garments impure

that are upon it?

And we were astonished:

Is that to say that her blood —

is it capable of [being a] couch and seat?

And we reject the astonishment:

And according to your reasoning,

is it so that

a stone afflicted

with the affliction of tzara'at

is capable of being a couch and seat,

so that

a verse is required to exclude it

from rendering the person who becomes impure through it impure with the impurity of a primary source, as a couch and seat renders impure?

For it was taught in a beraita: It might be that a stone afflicted [with tzara'at] makes

the impurity of

“couch and seat” —

to render a person impure and to render garments impure

that are upon it.

And it is a logical derivation

that it should render impure in this manner, by means of a kal va-chomer:

Just as a man with a discharge, who does not render impure through entering,

if a person entered a house in which the man with a discharge was present, he would not become impure—nevertheless, he

makes

the impurity of

couch and seat, to render a person impure and to render garments impure.

A stone afflicted [with tzara'at], which renders impure through entering,

the person who enters the house in which the stone is located —

is it not logical that it renders impure

with a severe impurity like the impurity of

“couch and seat” —

to render a person impure and to render garments impure!

The verse states:

“that which he lies upon”

“the man with a discharge,”

to tell you:

the man with a discharge

renders the impurity of couch and seat,

but not a stone afflicted [with tzara'at!]

And we infer:

The reason —

because the verse excluded it; otherwise it would render impure

an afflicted stone renders the object that becomes impure through it into a primary source of impurity, according to the law of the impurity of couch and seat.

And from it

you learn:

No. Did you say: “the man with a discharge” —

but not an afflicted stone?

Here too, the verse says

regarding a woman with a discharge:

“that upon which she sits” —

she, but not her blood!