Niddah 54b (נד:) — the Talmud in English

The days of childbirth,

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

during which she does not see

blood,

do they count toward her zavah count

of seven clean days?

This is referring to a woman who gave birth while she was a zavah, and immediately after the birth ceased seeing blood. The question is whether she can count the seven clean days of a zavah within the days of impurity of a woman after childbirth.

This is analogous to our question regarding a zavah: Can she count the seven clean days within the days of impurity of her menstruation, when she does not see blood during them?

Rav Kahana said: Come and hear

from what we learned in a beraita:

If she saw blood for two

days, during the eleven days of her zavah period,

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 viable child,

she is in doubt whether she is a zavah or whether she is a woman after childbirth.

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

a. gave birth to a viable child without seeing blood, in which case she is impure due to childbirth and not due to being a zavah, since she did not see blood for three days.

b. did not give birth to a viable child, but saw blood when the womb opened, in which case she is a zavah and not a woman after childbirth.

c. saw blood while giving birth to a viable child, in which case she is both a woman after childbirth and a zavah.

d. neither gave birth to a viable child nor saw blood, in which case she is neither a woman after childbirth nor a zavah.

Therefore, she is impure with the impurity of a woman after childbirth for two weeks, due to the doubt that perhaps she miscarried a female child. Likewise, whenever she sees blood, she is in doubt whether she is a zavah, and she cannot become pure until, after the bleeding has ceased, she counts seven clean days.

Likewise, she

brings an offering,

which is in doubt whether it is the offering of a zavah, the offering of a woman after childbirth, or an ordinary non-sacred offering,

and

therefore

it may not be eaten!

The beraita teaches an additional novelty:

And the days

of doubt concerning

her childbirth, during which she does not see

blood,

count toward her zavah count!

It is evident from here that although there is a possibility that she is both a woman after childbirth and a zavah, nevertheless the days of impurity following childbirth count toward her seven clean days.

Rav Pappa said:

There is no proof from this beraita, because

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

and nevertheless she observes fourteen days of impurity due to the doubt. Therefore,

all these additional seven days that we grant her count toward her zavah count!

Since she observes the days of impurity following the birth of a female child only due to a doubt, she may also count them as seven clean days for her zavah status.

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

Is it the case that only

with regard to a woman who gave birth to a male child is there a doubt,

but

with regard to a woman who gave birth to a female child there is no doubt?

But it is possible that she gave birth to a female child, in which case these seven days as well are days of impurity following childbirth. How, according to you, can she count them as days of counting seven clean days, unless we say that they can always be counted toward the seven clean days?!

Rather, is it not that one may infer from here that the days

of her childbirth impurity during which she does not see blood count toward the seven clean days of a zavah?

And we conclude: Indeed,

infer it from here!

The Gemara continues by bringing the continuation of the beraita from the previous page:

And if the woman’s pattern was

nine days of impurity and nine days of purity, she may engage in marital relations for eight days out of every eighteen-day period.

For after subtracting the seven days of menstruation from the nine impure days, only two days of zavah remain. She must observe the following day according to the law of one who observes a day corresponding to a day, leaving her eight days during which marital relations are permitted. She will never become a major zavah.

And when she again sees blood after eighteen days have elapsed from the beginning of the first sighting, the days of menstruation begin again, and the law returns to its original cycle, and so it continues forever.

And if her pattern was

ten days of impurity and ten days of purity, the days during which she may engage in marital relations are equal to the days of her zavah status.

For of the ten impure days, seven are days of menstruation and three are days of zavah. And of the ten days, seven are days of counting seven clean days, while three days are permitted for marital relations.

And likewise for one hundred.

Of one hundred days of impurity, seven are days of menstruation and ninety-three are days of zavah; likewise, of the days of purity, seven 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 zavah is equal to the number of days during which she is pure.

And likewise for one thousand.

We have returned to you, chapter Ba Siman.

Mishna:

Menstrual blood and the flesh of a corpse impart impurity, and they impart impurity whether moist or dry

But the discharge

the drops of semen that issue from a zav

and the sputum—

the sputum of a zav that emerges through coughing, or nasal mucus.

And the saliva

of a zav,

and the creeping creature, the carcass, and seminal fluid impart impurity when moist but do not impart impurity when dry. And if they can be soaked and restored to their original state

that is, if, by soaking them in water, they can become moist again as they were

they impart impurity when moist and impart impurity when dry.

And how much is their soaking?

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

?

In lukewarm water for twenty-four hours through soaking them in lukewarm water for twenty-four hours.

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

from imparting impurity through an olive-bulk.

Gemara:

From where are these matters

that menstrual blood imparts impurity through contact and carrying

? Hezekiah said: For the verse states: “And the woman who is ill in her menstrual impurity”; its discharge is like her: Just as she imparts impurity, so too her discharge

imparts impurity.

The Gemara asks:

We have found

blood that is moist;

from where do we derive that dry blood is impure? Rabbi Yitzhak said: The verse states “shall be”—it shall remain as it is.

The Gemara asks:

But perhaps this applies only when it was moist and became dry; from where do we know that blood that was dry from the outset is impure

? And if you would say that this is indeed so, that blood which was originally dry does not impart impurity—

furthermore

3, concerning that which we learned: A woman who miscarries something resembling a shell

or

something resembling dust

red, or

something resembling a hair

red, or

something resembling red gnats—

she shall place

what she miscarried

into water.

And

if they dissolved—

they are blood—

impure!

This proves that blood that was originally dry 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 following: Let us say:

If she

the menstruating woman herself

causes bedding and seating to impart impurity to a person and to garments, then her blood, too—

causes

it, rendering one who touches it impure with an impurity resembling that of

bedding and seating,

which is severe, like the law of a primary source of impurity,

to render a person and garments impure

that are upon it

?

And we wonder: Is that to say that her blood

is subject to bedding and seating?

And we reject the premise of the question:

According to your reasoning,

is

a stone afflicted

with a leprous lesion

subject to bedding and seating,

so that

a verse was required to exclude it,

so that the stone should not render one who becomes impure through it impure with the impurity of a primary source, as bedding and seating does

?

As it was taught in a beraita: One might have thought that a stone afflicted with impurity of

“bedding and seating”—

to render a person impure and to render garments

that are upon him

. And it is a logical inference

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

Just as a zav, who does not impart impurity through entry,

that is, if a person enters a house where the zav is present, he does not become impure—nevertheless, he

causes

the impurity of

bedding and seating, to render a person impure and to render garments.

A stone afflicted with a leprous lesion, which imparts impurity through entry,

to one who enters the house in which the stone is located—

is it not logical that it imparts

an impurity as severe as the impurity of

“bedding and seating,”—

to render a person impure and to render garments!

The verse states: “That upon which

he [the zav] lies

shall bear the zav,”

to tell you:

The zav

imparts the impurity of bedding and seating,

but not a stone afflicted with a leprous lesion!

And we infer:

The reason—

that the verse excluded it; otherwise, it would impart impurity

that is, an afflicted stone would render the object that becomes impure through it a primary source of impurity, in accordance with the impurity of bedding and seating.

And from this

you learn:

No. Did you say: “The zav”—

but not an afflicted stone?

Here, too, the verse states

with regard to a zava:

“That upon which she sits”—

she, but not her blood!