Niddah 37

אזל שילא אמר לדביתהו צבית לי זוודתא דלא ליזיל ולימא ליה לרב מילי עילואי צביתה ליה זוודתא נח נפשיה דשילא חזו דפרחא אסא מהאי פוריא להאי פוריא אמרי שמע מינה עבדו רבנן פייסא

Immediately upon Rav Asi’s death, Sheila bar Avina went and said to his wife: Prepare for me provisions [zevadata], i.e., shrouds for my burial, as I will soon die. This is in order that Rav Asi will not go and tell Rav matters of criticism about me, that I did not listen to Rav Asi and that I caused his death because I took offense when he excommunicated me. His wife prepared for him the provisions, and Sheila passed away. The biers of Rav Asi and Sheila bar Avina were brought together for burial. Those accompanying the dead saw that the myrtle that was customarily placed on a bier was flying from this bier to that bier. They said: Conclude from it that the Sages, i.e., Rav Asi and Sheila bar Avina, have made peace with one another.

בעי רבא קושי מהו שתסתור בזיבה

§ The mishna teaches that a woman who experiences an emission of blood due to labor pains is not rendered a zava if she sees the blood in days when she can become a zava, but rather a menstruating woman if she sees the blood on days during which she can be a menstruating woman. In this regard Rava raises a dilemma: In general, if a zava experiences an emission of blood while counting seven clean days, her count is negated and she must begin a new count of seven clean days. But what is the halakha with regard to a zava who experienced an emission of blood due to labor pains? Does this emission negate her count with regard to ziva?

דבר המטמא סותר והאי נמי מטמא כימי נדה הוא או דילמא דבר הגורם סותר והאי לאו גורם הוא

Rava elaborates: Does every substance that imparts impurity negate the count of seven clean days? If so, as this emission imparts impurity like blood of the days of menstruation, it negates her count as well. Or perhaps only a substance that causes a woman to become a zava negates her count, and as this blood is not a substance that causes her to become a zava it does not negate her count.

אמר ליה אביי אונס בזיבה יוכיח שאינו גורם וסותר

Abaye said to Rava: The case of an emission of ziva due to circumstances beyond one’s control will prove the halakha with regard to this dilemma, as such an emission does not cause one to be rendered a zav, and yet it negates one’s count of seven clean days.

אמר ליה לאיי האי נמי גורם הוא דתנן ראה ראייה ראשונה בודקין אותו שניה בודקין אותו שלישית אין בודקין אותו

Rava said to him: This is not so [la’ei], as this emission of ziva due to circumstances beyond one’s control is also a substance that causes one to be rendered a zav, as we learned in a mishna (Zavim 2:2): With regard to a man who saw a first sighting of ziva, one examines him to determine whether the discharge was caused by circumstances beyond his control. After the second sighting of ziva as well, one examines him. But after the third sighting one does not examine him, as even if the third sighting occurred due to circumstances beyond his control he is nevertheless rendered a zav on its account.

ולרבי אליעזר דאמר אף בשלישי בודקין אותו הכי נמי כיון דלא גרים לא סתר אמר ליה לרבי אליעזר הכי נמי

Abaye asked Rava: And according to Rabbi Eliezer, who said: Even after the third discharge one examines him, will you indeed say that since an emission of ziva due to circumstances beyond one’s control does not cause one to be rendered a zav, it does not negate his count? Rava said to Abaye: According to Rabbi Eliezer, this is indeed the case.

תא שמע רבי אליעזר אומר אף בשלישית בודקין אותו ברביעית אין בודקין אותו מאי לאו לסתירה

The Gemara attempts to reject Rava’s explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer: Come and hear a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Even after the third discharge one examines him to establish whether he must bring an offering, but after the fourth discharge one does not examine him. What, is it not correct to say that as he was already rendered a zav after three discharges, an examination after the fourth discharge is for the matter of negating any clean days counted thus far? If so, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that an emission of ziva due to circumstances beyond one’s control negates one’s count.

לא לטמויה לההיא טיפה במשא

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, it is possible that the purpose of the examination after the fourth discharge is to determine whether to render impure that drop of ziva such that it imparts impurity through carrying. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the discharge of a zav imparts impurity through carrying, even if the discharge occurred due to circumstances beyond his control.

תא שמע בשלישית רבי אליעזר אומר בודקין אותו ברביעית אין בודקין אותו לקרבן אמרתי ולא לסתירה

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another baraita: With regard to the third discharge, Rabbi Eliezer says that one examines him, but after the fourth discharge one does not examine him. The reason is as I said, that the purpose of these examinations is to determine liability to bring an offering, and they do not pertain to the matter of negating any clean days counted thus far. Since the fourth sighting does not affect liability to bring an offering there is no need for an examination. Evidently, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that a discharge that occurs due to circumstances beyond one’s control does negate his count.

אלא לרבי אליעזר תפשוט דדבר שאינו גורם סותר לרבנן מאי

The Gemara concedes: Rather, according to Rabbi Eliezer, one can resolve the dilemma and conclude that even a substance that does not cause one to be rendered a zav negates one’s count. But what is the halakha according to the opinion of the Rabbis?

תא שמע דתני אבוה דרבי אבין מה גרם לו זובו שבעה לפיכך סותר שבעה מה גרם לו קריו יום אחד לפיכך סותר יום אחד

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which the father of Rabbi Avin teaches with regard to the question of why a discharge of ziva causes a zav to negate his entire count of clean days, whereas a seminal emission negates only the day of the emission itself: What did his ziva cause for him? An impurity of seven days. Therefore, a discharge of ziva causes him to negate his count of seven clean days. By contrast, what did his seminal emission cause for him? An impurity of one day alone. Therefore, a seminal emission causes him to negate only one day of his count.

מאי שבעה אילימא דמטמא שבעה האי מה זובו טמא שבעה מבעי ליה אלא לאו דבר הגורם סותר דבר שאינו גורם אינו סותר שמע מינה

The Gemara analyzes this statement: What is the meaning of the claim that ziva causes an impurity of seven days? If we say it means merely that ziva renders him impure for seven days, then the father of Rabbi Avin should have stated: Just as his ziva causes him to be impure for seven days, so too, it negates his count of seven clean days. Rather, is it not that the mention of causation indicates that this is what he is saying: A substance that causes one to be rendered a zav negates one’s count of seven clean days, whereas a substance that does not cause one to be rendered a zav, e.g., an emission of blood due to labor pains, does not negate one’s count. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is the opinion of the Rabbis.

אמר אביי נקטינן אין קושי סותר בזיבה ואי משכחת תנא דאמר סותר ההוא רבי אליעזר היא

With regard to the halakha, Abaye said: We have a tradition that blood emitted by a woman due to labor pains does not negate the seven clean days of ziva, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And if you a find tanna who said that it does negate them, the statement of that tanna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

תניא רבי מרינוס אומר אין לידה סותרת בזיבה איבעיא להו מהו שתעלה אביי אמר אינה סותרת ואינה עולה רבא אמר אינה סותרת ועולה

§ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Marinus says: In the case of a zava who gave birth in the middle of counting seven clean days, the birth does not negate her count of seven clean days of ziva. With regard to this statement, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha as to whether her days of impurity may be counted toward the seven clean days of ziva? Abaye says: The birth does not negate her count, but it does not count toward the seven clean days. Rava says: The birth does not negate her count and it also counts toward the seven days.

אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דתניא ואחר תטהר אחר אחר לכולן שלא תהא טומאה מפסקת ביניהם

Rava said: From where do I say that the birth is counted toward the seven days? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “But if she is purified from her ziva then she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be pure” (Leviticus 15:28). The word “after” indicates that she shall be pure only after counting all of them, i.e., that there should not be an impurity separating between any of the seven clean days.

אי אמרת בשלמא עולה היינו דלא מפסקת טומאה אלא אי אמרת אינה עולה אפסיק ליה לידה ואביי אמר לך שלא תהא טומאת זיבה מפסקת ביניהם

Rava explains: Granted, if you say the birth counts toward the seven clean days, this is in accordance with the requirement that there should not be an impurity separating between any of the seven clean days, as they remain consecutive. But if you say the birth does not count toward the seven clean days, then the birth separates between the seven clean days. The Gemara notes: And Abaye could have said to you that the baraita means that there should not be an impurity of ziva separating between them. There is no problem with a separation due to birth.

אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דתניא מזובה מזובה ולא מנגעה מזובה ולא מלידתה ואביי אמר לך תני חדא מזובה ולא מנגעה ולא תתני ולא מלידתה

Rava further said: From where do I say that the birth is counted toward the seven clean days? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “But if she is purified from her ziva then she shall count for herself seven days” (Leviticus 15:28). This indicates that she counts seven clean days from her ziva and not from her leprosy, i.e., she begins counting seven days from the cessation of her ziva, even if she is a leper. Likewise, she counts seven clean days from her ziva and not from her giving birth, as she counts seven clean days even if they continue through her days of impurity. The Gemara notes: And Abaye could have said to you: From this verse teach one derivation, i.e., from her ziva and not from her leprosy, but do not teach: From her ziva and not from her giving birth.

ורבא האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא מזובה ולא מלידתה איידי דאצטריך ליה לידה תנא נגעה אטו לידה אלא אי אמרת מזובה ולא מנגעה האי מוכי יטהר הזב מזובו נפקא מזובו ולא מנגעו

And Rava would respond: What is this suggestion? Granted, if you say that the tanna of the baraita taught: From her ziva and not from her giving birth, one can understand why the tanna also teaches: From her ziva and not from her leprosy: Since it was necessary for the tanna to teach this halakha with regard to birth, he taught it with regard to her leprosy, due to the fact that he taught it with regard to birth. But if you say that the tanna taught only: From her ziva and not from her leprosy, then the verse is unnecessary, as this halakha is already derived from another verse: “And when the zav is purified of his ziva” (Leviticus 15:13), i.e., from his ziva and not from his leprosy.

ואביי חד בזב וחד בזבה וצריכי דאי כתב רחמנא

And Abaye could respond: One verse discusses the case of a zav and the other one discusses the case of a zava, and both verses are necessary. As, if the Merciful One had written

בזב משום דלא מטמא באונס אבל זבה דמטמיא באונס אימא לא צריכא

this halakha only with regard to a zav, one might have thought that the Torah was lenient solely in the case of a zav, because a zav is not rendered impure on account of an emission that occurs due to circumstances beyond his control. But in the case of a zava, who is rendered impure on account of an emission that occurs due to circumstances beyond her control, one might say this halakha does not apply. It was therefore necessary for the verse to teach that a zava may count her seven clean days even if she is a leper.

ואי כתב רחמנא בזבה משום דלא מטמיא בראיות כבימים אבל זב דמטמא בראיות כבימים אימא לא צריכא

And if the Merciful One had written this halakha only with regard to a zava, one might have thought that the Torah was lenient with regard to a zava, because she is not rendered impure through three sightings on one day, as she is through sightings on three consecutive days. But with regard to a zav, who is rendered impure through three sightings on one day, as he is through sightings on three consecutive days, one might say that this halakha does not apply. It was therefore necessary for the verse to teach that a zav may count his seven clean days even if he is a leper.

אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתניא דותה תטמא לרבות את בועלה

Abaye says: From where do I say that although the birth does not negate the count of a zava, it does not count toward the seven clean days? As it is taught in a baraita which addresses the verse: “If a woman be delivered, and bear a male, then she shall be impure seven days; as in the days of her menstrual sickness she shall be impure” (Leviticus 12:2). The superfluous phrase: “Her menstrual sickness she shall be impure,” serves to include a man who engages in intercourse with her, teaching that he is rendered impure as a menstruating woman and imparts impurity like her.

דותה תטמא לרבות את הלילות דותה תטמא לרבות את היולדת בזוב שצריכה שתשב שבעה נקיים

Furthermore, the phrase: “Her menstrual sickness she shall be impure,” serves to include the nights, i.e., although the verse states: “As in the days,” she is impure during the night as well. Finally, the phrase: “Her menstrual sickness she shall be impure,” serves to include a woman who gives birth as a zava, teaching that she must observe seven clean days.

מאי לאו נקיים מלידה לא מדם

Abaye continues: What, is it not correct that the baraita means she must observe seven days that are clean from the impurity of birth? Evidently, her days of impurity do not count toward her count of seven clean days. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, the baraita means that these days must be clean of blood. If she does not experience bleeding during her days of impurity, they may be counted toward her seven clean days.

ואמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתניא כימי נדתה כך ימי לידתה מה ימי נדתה אין ראוין לזיבה ואין ספירת שבעה עולה מהן אף ימי לידתה שאין ראוין לזיבה אין ספירת שבעה עולה מהן

And Abaye said: From where do I say that the birth does not count toward the seven clean days? As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the aforementioned verse: The verse compares the halakha of the impurity of birth to the impurity of menstruation, indicating that the days of her menstruation are like the days of her giving birth: Just as the days of her menstruation are unfit for ziva, as a woman may be rendered a zava only through emissions during the eleven days following the seven days of menstruation, and the counting of seven clean days of ziva is not reckoned from them because as long as she remains a zava she cannot be deemed a menstruating woman; so too, with regard to the days of her giving birth, which are unfit for ziva because a woman cannot be rendered a zava on account of blood emitted due to childbirth, the counting of seven clean days of ziva is not reckoned from them.

ורבא הא מני רבי אליעזר היא דאמר מסתר נמי סתרה

The Gemara notes: And Rava, who maintains that the days of impurity may be counted toward the seven clean days, could say to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that not only is the birth not counted toward the seven clean days, it also negates any days counted thus far.

וכי דנין אפשר משאי אפשר

The Gemara analyzes the aforementioned baraita, which compares the halakha of the impurity of birth to the impurity of menstruation, with regard to ziva: But does one derive the possible from the impossible? In other words, how can the halakha with regard to impurity after giving birth be derived from that of the days of menstruation? While it is possible for a woman to give birth as a zava, it is impossible for a zava to simultaneously attain the status of a menstruating woman.

אמר רב אחדבוי בר אמי רבי אליעזר היא דאמר דנין אפשר משאי אפשר ורב ששת אמר על כרחך הקישן הכתוב איכא דאמרי אמר רב אחדבוי בר אמי אמר רב ששת רבי אליעזר היא דאמר דנין אפשר משאי אפשר ורב פפא אמר על כרחך הקישן הכתוב

Rav Aḥadevoi bar Ami says: This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that one derives the possible from the impossible. And Rav Sheshet says a different explanation: Although generally one does not derive the possible from the impossible, perforce the verse juxtaposed the days of impurity after birth and those of menstruation, and a juxtaposition in the verse is expounded even if one case is possible while the other is not. Some say a different attribution of these answers, that Rav Aḥadevoi bar Ami says that Rav Sheshet says: This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said that one derives the possible from the impossible. And Rav Pappa says: Perforce the verse juxtaposed the days of impurity after birth and those of menstruation.

קשתה שלשה ימים וכו׳

§ The mishna teaches that if a woman experienced labor pains accompanied by emissions of blood for three consecutive days within the eleven days between periods of menstruation, and the pangs subsided for a twenty-four-hour period, and she then gave birth, this indicates that the emissions were not due to her imminent labor, and this woman is considered one who gives birth as a zava. Additionally, the mishna states that she is considered a zava in a case where she rested from the pain of labor, but not necessarily from the flow of blood. Accordingly, if the pangs cease for twenty-four hours, she is considered a zava even if blood was discharging continuously.

איבעיא להו שפתה מזה ומזה מהו רב חסדא אמר טמאה רבי חנינא אמר טהורה

In this regard, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: If she rested from both this and that, from labor pains and emissions of blood, what is the halakha? Rav Ḥisda says that as she rested from labor pains it is evident that the emissions of blood were not due to her imminent labor, and she is ritually impure. Rabbi Ḥanina says that as the emissions of blood also ceased it is apparent that they were due to her imminent labor, and she is ritually pure.

אמר רבי חנינא משל למלך שיצא וחיילותיו לפניו בידוע שחיילותיו של מלך הן

Rabbi Ḥanina says, in explanation of his opinion: Hear a parable; to what is this case comparable? It is comparable to a king who left his palace, and his soldiers left before him. Although the king travels behind them, it is known that they are the soldiers of the king. Likewise, although both the labor pains and the blood subsided, it is clear that the blood she emitted was due to the approaching birth, and therefore she is not a zava.

ורב חסדא אמר כל שכן דבעי נפיש חיילות טפי

And Rav Ḥisda says: By the same parable, i.e., assuming that the soldiers arrive before the king, all the more so that there must be many more soldiers accompanying the king upon his arrival. The lack of soldiers before the arrival of the king indicates that they are not in fact soldiers of the king. Likewise, the cessation of labor pains before the birth indicates that the previous emissions of blood were not due to her imminent labor. She is therefore rendered a zava.

תנן רבי יהושע אומר לילה ויום כלילי שבת ויומו ששפתה מן הצער ולא מן הדם טעמא דמן הצער ולא מן הדם הא מזה ומזה טהורה תיובתא דרב חסדא

The Gemara raises an objection against the opinion of Rav Ḥisda: We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehoshua says: She is considered a zava only if the pangs subsided for a twenty-four-hour period of a night and the following day, like Shabbat evening and its accompanying day. Additionally, she is considered a zava in a case where she rested from the pain of labor but not from the flow of blood. The Gemara infers: The reason she is rendered a zava is that she rested from the pain of labor and not from the flow of blood. But if she rested from both this and that, from labor pains and emissions of blood, she is ritually pure. The mishna is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Ḥisda.

אמר לך רב חסדא לא מבעיא מזה ומזה דטמאה דפסקי להו חיילות לגמרי אבל מן הצער ולא מן הדם אימר כי היכי דמדם לא פסקה מקושי נמי לא פסקה והא תונבא בעלמא הוא דנקט לה קא משמע לן

The Gemara explains that Rav Ḥisda could say to you: It is not necessary to teach that if she rested from both this and that she is impure, as, in terms of the above parable, the king’s soldiers have ceased entirely, i.e., both the labor pains and the blood have completely subsided. But with regard to a case where she rested from the pain but not from the blood, one might say that just as she did not cease emitting blood, so too, she did not cease experiencing labor pains, and the fact that she does not sense any pain is because she was seized by a general disorientation, i.e., she was so weakened by the labor that she was unable to discern pain. Consequently, she should remain pure. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that if she does not feel labor pains, this is indicative that the previous emissions of blood were not due to her imminent labor, and she is a zava.

תנן קשתה שלשה ימים בתוך אחד עשר יום ושפתה מעת לעת וילדה הרי זו יולדת בזוב

The Gemara poses a difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina: We learned in the mishna: If a woman experienced labor pains for three consecutive days within the eleven days between periods of menstruation, and she rested from labor for a twenty-four-hour period, and she then gave birth, this woman is considered one who gives birth as a zava.

היכי דמי אילימא כדקתני למה לי שלש בתרי בקושי וחד בשופי סגי

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: What are the circumstances of the scenario described in the mishna? If we say that it is as is taught, i.e., she rested from labor pains but continued to emit blood, then why do I need for her to experience three days of labor pains accompanied by emissions of blood in order for her to be rendered a zava? If she experienced bleeding during two days of labor pains and one day of resting, it would be sufficient to render her a zava, as she experienced bleeding even on the day she rested from labor pains.

אלא לאו הכי קאמר קשתה שלשה ושפתה מזה ומזה או שקשתה שנים ושפתה מעת לעת הרי זו יולדת בזוב ותיובתא דרבי חנינא

Rather, is it not correct that this is what the mishna is saying: If she experienced labor pains accompanied by emissions of blood for three days and she then rested from both this and that, or if she experienced labor pains for two days and she then rested from labor pains for a twenty-four-hour period, this woman is considered one who gives birth as a zava? And if so, the mishna is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina.

אמר לך רבי חנינא לא לעולם כדקתני והא קא משמע לן דאף על גב דמתחיל קישוי בשלישי ושפתה מעת לעת טמאה לאפוקי מרבי חנינא

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Ḥanina could say to you: No, actually the mishna is to be understood as it is taught, that she experienced labors pains for three days and then rested from the pain but continued to emit blood. And this is what the mishna is teaching us: That even though she began experiencing labor pains at beginning of the third day, and she then rested from labor pains for a twenty-four-hour period during which she continued to emit blood, she is impure. And this serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, i.e., Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother, who maintains that if a woman experiences labor pains during even part of her third day of experiencing emissions of blood she is not a zava, even if the pain then subsided for a twenty-four-hour period (see 36b).

כמה היא קשויה רבי מאיר אומר וכו׳ השתא חמשים מקשיא ארבעים מיבעיא אמר רב חסדא לא קשיא כאן לחולה כאן לבריאה

The mishna teaches: How long before birth is pain attributable to her labor pains, such that the blood is not considered blood of ziva? Rabbi Meir says: Even forty or fifty days before the birth. The Gemara asks: Now that you have said that even fifty days before the due date a woman can experience labor pains, is it necessary to teach that she can experience them forty days before? Rav Ḥisda says: This is not difficult. Here, where the mishna states that she can experience labor pains fifty days before birth, it is referring to a sick woman; there, where the mishna states that she can experience labor pains forty days before birth, it is referring to a healthy woman.

אמר רבי לוי אין הולד מטהר אלא ימים הראויין להיות בהן זבה ורב אמר אפילו בימים הראויין לספירת זבה אמר רב אדא בר אהבה ולטעמיה דרב

§ With regard to the halakha that a woman who experiences labor pains does not contract the impurity of ziva, Rabbi Levi says: The birth of a child renders the mother ritually pure from ziva only if she experienced bleeding during the eleven days that are fit for her to become a zava. But if she experienced bleeding due to labor pains during the days of menstruation that precede or follow those eleven days, she is a menstruating woman. And Rav says: Even if she continued to experience bleeding during the days that are fit for the counting of a zava, i.e., in the seven days following the eleven days of ziva, which are also part of her days of menstruation, she remains pure. Rav Adda bar Ahava says: And according to the reasoning of Rav,