Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 29, 2019 | 讗壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖状驻

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Niddah 37

If a woman is a zava and then sees blood with contractions during her seven clean days, does that cancel her clean days? In order to cancel clean days, does it need to be something that would make her a zava or not? According to Rabbi Merinus, birth doesn’t cancel her clean days of zava from before the birth – but can the days following birth count as clean days? Abaya and Rava disagree on this issue. According to the mishna, if the contractions stop, but not the bleeding, for 24 hours, the woman is considered a zava, but what if the bleeding stopped with the contractions? Rav Chisda and Rabbi Chanina disagree regarding this issue.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讗讝诇 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 爪讘讬转 诇讬 讝讜讜讚转讗 讚诇讗 诇讬讝讬诇 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 诪讬诇讬 注讬诇讜讗讬 爪讘讬转讛 诇讬讛 讝讜讜讚转讗 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚砖讬诇讗 讞讝讜 讚驻专讞讗 讗住讗 诪讛讗讬 驻讜专讬讗 诇讛讗讬 驻讜专讬讗 讗诪专讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 注讘讚讜 专讘谞谉 驻讬讬住讗

Immediately upon Rav Asi鈥檚 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.

讘注讬 专讘讗 拽讜砖讬 诪讛讜 砖转住转讜专 讘讝讬讘讛

搂 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?

讚讘专 讛诪讟诪讗 住讜转专 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讟诪讗 讻讬诪讬 谞讚讛 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讚讘专 讛讙讜专诐 住讜转专 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讙讜专诐 讛讜讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讜谞住 讘讝讬讘讛 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜专诐 讜住讜转专

Abaye said to Rava: The case of an emission of ziva due to circumstances beyond one鈥檚 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鈥檚 count of seven clean days.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讬讬 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讙讜专诐 讛讜讗 讚转谞谉 专讗讛 专讗讬讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖谞讬讛 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖诇讬砖讬转 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜

Rava said to him: This is not so [la鈥檈i], as this emission of ziva due to circumstances beyond one鈥檚 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.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讗祝 讘砖诇讬砖讬 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讙专讬诐 诇讗 住转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

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鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘专讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇住转讬专讛

The Gemara attempts to reject Rava鈥檚 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鈥檚 control negates one鈥檚 count.

诇讗 诇讟诪讜讬讛 诇讛讛讬讗 讟讬驻讛 讘诪砖讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘专讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇拽专讘谉 讗诪专转讬 讜诇讗 诇住转讬专讛

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鈥檚 control does negate his count.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 转驻砖讜讟 讚讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜专诐 住讜转专 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬

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鈥檚 count. But what is the halakha according to the opinion of the Rabbis?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 诪讛 讙专诐 诇讜 讝讜讘讜 砖讘注讛 诇驻讬讻讱 住讜转专 砖讘注讛 诪讛 讙专诐 诇讜 拽专讬讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇驻讬讻讱 住讜转专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

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.

诪讗讬 砖讘注讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪讟诪讗 砖讘注讛 讛讗讬 诪讛 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 砖讘注讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讘专 讛讙讜专诐 住讜转专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜专诐 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 count. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讗讬谉 拽讜砖讬 住讜转专 讘讝讬讘讛 讜讗讬 诪砖讻讞转 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 住讜转专 讛讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗

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.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪专讬谞讜住 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬讚讛 住讜转专转 讘讝讬讘讛 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 砖转注诇讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 住讜转专转 讜讗讬谞讛 注讜诇讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 住讜转专转 讜注讜诇讛

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜讗讞专 转讟讛专 讗讞专 讗讞专 诇讻讜诇谉 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讟讜诪讗讛 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谞讬讛诐

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: 鈥淏ut if she is purified from her ziva then she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 15:28). The word 鈥渁fter鈥 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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 注讜诇讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诇讗 诪驻住拽转 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谞讛 注讜诇讛 讗驻住讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讬讚讛 讜讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讱 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讟讜诪讗转 讝讬讘讛 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谞讬讛诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪讝讜讘讛 诪讝讜讘讛 讜诇讗 诪谞讙注讛 诪讝讜讘讛 讜诇讗 诪诇讬讚转讛 讜讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讱 转谞讬 讞讚讗 诪讝讜讘讛 讜诇讗 诪谞讙注讛 讜诇讗 转转谞讬 讜诇讗 诪诇讬讚转讛

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: 鈥淏ut if she is purified from her ziva then she shall count for herself seven days鈥 (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.

讜专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讝讜讘讛 讜诇讗 诪诇讬讚转讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讬讚讛 转谞讗 谞讙注讛 讗讟讜 诇讬讚讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讝讜讘讛 讜诇讗 诪谞讙注讛 讛讗讬 诪讜讻讬 讬讟讛专 讛讝讘 诪讝讜讘讜 谞驻拽讗 诪讝讜讘讜 讜诇讗 诪谞讙注讜

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: 鈥淎nd when the zav is purified of his ziva (Leviticus 15:13), i.e., from his ziva and not from his leprosy.

讜讗讘讬讬 讞讚 讘讝讘 讜讞讚 讘讝讘讛 讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗

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

讘讝讘 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讜谞住 讗讘诇 讝讘讛 讚诪讟诪讬讗 讘讗讜谞住 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讝讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讬讗 讘专讗讬讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐 讗讘诇 讝讘 讚诪讟诪讗 讘专讗讬讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讚讜转讛 转讟诪讗 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讘讜注诇讛

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: 鈥淚f 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鈥 (Leviticus 12:2). The superfluous phrase: 鈥淗er menstrual sickness she shall be impure,鈥 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.

讚讜转讛 转讟诪讗 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诇讬诇讜转 讚讜转讛 转讟诪讗 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讬讜诇讚转 讘讝讜讘 砖爪专讬讻讛 砖转砖讘 砖讘注讛 谞拽讬讬诐

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

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 谞拽讬讬诐 诪诇讬讚讛 诇讗 诪讚诐

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.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 讻讱 讬诪讬 诇讬讚转讛 诪讛 讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 讗讬谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇讝讬讘讛 讜讗讬谉 住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛 注讜诇讛 诪讛谉 讗祝 讬诪讬 诇讬讚转讛 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇讝讬讘讛 讗讬谉 住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛 注讜诇讛 诪讛谉

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.

讜专讘讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪住转专 谞诪讬 住转专讛

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.

讜讻讬 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 注诇 讻专讞讱 讛拽讬砖谉 讛讻转讜讘 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 讜专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 注诇 讻专讞讱 讛拽讬砖谉 讛讻转讜讘

Rav A岣devoi 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 A岣devoi 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.

拽砖转讛 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讜讻讜壮

搂 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖驻转讛 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 诪讛讜 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讟诪讗讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 讟讛讜专讛

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 岣sda 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 岣nina 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖诇 诇诪诇讱 砖讬爪讗 讜讞讬讬诇讜转讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 讘讬讚讜注 砖讞讬讬诇讜转讬讜 砖诇 诪诇讱 讛谉

Rabbi 岣nina 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.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讘注讬 谞驻讬砖 讞讬讬诇讜转 讟驻讬

And Rav 岣sda 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.

转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讬诇讛 讜讬讜诐 讻诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 讜讬讜诪讜 砖砖驻转讛 诪谉 讛爪注专 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讚诐 讟注诪讗 讚诪谉 讛爪注专 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讚诐 讛讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讟讛讜专讛 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗

The Gemara raises an objection against the opinion of Rav 岣sda: 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 岣sda.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讚讟诪讗讛 讚驻住拽讬 诇讛讜 讞讬讬诇讜转 诇讙诪专讬 讗讘诇 诪谉 讛爪注专 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讚诐 讗讬诪专 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讚诐 诇讗 驻住拽讛 诪拽讜砖讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 驻住拽讛 讜讛讗 转讜谞讘讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讟 诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains that Rav 岣sda 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鈥檚 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.

转谞谉 拽砖转讛 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讘转讜讱 讗讞讚 注砖专 讬讜诐 讜砖驻转讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜讬诇讚讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讬讜诇讚转 讘讝讜讘

The Gemara poses a difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina: 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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诇砖 讘转专讬 讘拽讜砖讬 讜讞讚 讘砖讜驻讬 住讙讬

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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 拽砖转讛 砖诇砖讛 讜砖驻转讛 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讗讜 砖拽砖转讛 砖谞讬诐 讜砖驻转讛 诪注转 诇注转 讛专讬 讝讜 讬讜诇讚转 讘讝讜讘 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

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 岣nina.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪转讞讬诇 拽讬砖讜讬 讘砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖驻转讛 诪注转 诇注转 讟诪讗讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

The Gemara explains that Rabbi 岣nina 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 岣nina, i.e., 岣nanya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 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).

讻诪讛 讛讬讗 拽砖讜讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 讛砖转讗 讞诪砖讬诐 诪拽砖讬讗 讗专讘注讬诐 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇讞讜诇讛 讻讗谉 诇讘专讬讗讛

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 岣sda 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 诪讟讛专 讗诇讗 讬诪讬诐 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讘讛谉 讝讘讛 讜专讘 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬诪讬诐 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇住驻讬专转 讝讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜诇讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘

搂 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,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Niddah 37

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Niddah 37

讗讝诇 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 爪讘讬转 诇讬 讝讜讜讚转讗 讚诇讗 诇讬讝讬诇 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 诪讬诇讬 注讬诇讜讗讬 爪讘讬转讛 诇讬讛 讝讜讜讚转讗 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚砖讬诇讗 讞讝讜 讚驻专讞讗 讗住讗 诪讛讗讬 驻讜专讬讗 诇讛讗讬 驻讜专讬讗 讗诪专讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 注讘讚讜 专讘谞谉 驻讬讬住讗

Immediately upon Rav Asi鈥檚 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.

讘注讬 专讘讗 拽讜砖讬 诪讛讜 砖转住转讜专 讘讝讬讘讛

搂 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?

讚讘专 讛诪讟诪讗 住讜转专 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讟诪讗 讻讬诪讬 谞讚讛 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讚讘专 讛讙讜专诐 住讜转专 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讙讜专诐 讛讜讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讜谞住 讘讝讬讘讛 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜专诐 讜住讜转专

Abaye said to Rava: The case of an emission of ziva due to circumstances beyond one鈥檚 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鈥檚 count of seven clean days.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讬讬 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讙讜专诐 讛讜讗 讚转谞谉 专讗讛 专讗讬讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖谞讬讛 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 砖诇讬砖讬转 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜

Rava said to him: This is not so [la鈥檈i], as this emission of ziva due to circumstances beyond one鈥檚 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.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚讗诪专 讗祝 讘砖诇讬砖讬 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讙专讬诐 诇讗 住转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

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鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘专讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇住转讬专讛

The Gemara attempts to reject Rava鈥檚 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鈥檚 control negates one鈥檚 count.

诇讗 诇讟诪讜讬讛 诇讛讛讬讗 讟讬驻讛 讘诪砖讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讘砖诇讬砖讬转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘专讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 讘讜讚拽讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇拽专讘谉 讗诪专转讬 讜诇讗 诇住转讬专讛

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鈥檚 control does negate his count.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 转驻砖讜讟 讚讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜专诐 住讜转专 诇专讘谞谉 诪讗讬

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鈥檚 count. But what is the halakha according to the opinion of the Rabbis?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 诪讛 讙专诐 诇讜 讝讜讘讜 砖讘注讛 诇驻讬讻讱 住讜转专 砖讘注讛 诪讛 讙专诐 诇讜 拽专讬讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 诇驻讬讻讱 住讜转专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚

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.

诪讗讬 砖讘注讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诪讟诪讗 砖讘注讛 讛讗讬 诪讛 讝讜讘讜 讟诪讗 砖讘注讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讘专 讛讙讜专诐 住讜转专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜专诐 讗讬谞讜 住讜转专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 count. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讗讬谉 拽讜砖讬 住讜转专 讘讝讬讘讛 讜讗讬 诪砖讻讞转 转谞讗 讚讗诪专 住讜转专 讛讛讜讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗

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.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪专讬谞讜住 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬讚讛 住讜转专转 讘讝讬讘讛 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 砖转注诇讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 住讜转专转 讜讗讬谞讛 注讜诇讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 住讜转专转 讜注讜诇讛

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜讗讞专 转讟讛专 讗讞专 讗讞专 诇讻讜诇谉 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讟讜诪讗讛 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谞讬讛诐

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: 鈥淏ut if she is purified from her ziva then she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be pure鈥 (Leviticus 15:28). The word 鈥渁fter鈥 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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 注讜诇讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诇讗 诪驻住拽转 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谞讛 注讜诇讛 讗驻住讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讬讚讛 讜讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讱 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讟讜诪讗转 讝讬讘讛 诪驻住拽转 讘讬谞讬讛诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 诪讝讜讘讛 诪讝讜讘讛 讜诇讗 诪谞讙注讛 诪讝讜讘讛 讜诇讗 诪诇讬讚转讛 讜讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讱 转谞讬 讞讚讗 诪讝讜讘讛 讜诇讗 诪谞讙注讛 讜诇讗 转转谞讬 讜诇讗 诪诇讬讚转讛

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: 鈥淏ut if she is purified from her ziva then she shall count for herself seven days鈥 (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.

讜专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诪讝讜讘讛 讜诇讗 诪诇讬讚转讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讬讚讛 转谞讗 谞讙注讛 讗讟讜 诇讬讚讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诪讝讜讘讛 讜诇讗 诪谞讙注讛 讛讗讬 诪讜讻讬 讬讟讛专 讛讝讘 诪讝讜讘讜 谞驻拽讗 诪讝讜讘讜 讜诇讗 诪谞讙注讜

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: 鈥淎nd when the zav is purified of his ziva (Leviticus 15:13), i.e., from his ziva and not from his leprosy.

讜讗讘讬讬 讞讚 讘讝讘 讜讞讚 讘讝讘讛 讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗

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

讘讝讘 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讗讜谞住 讗讘诇 讝讘讛 讚诪讟诪讬讗 讘讗讜谞住 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讝讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讟诪讬讗 讘专讗讬讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐 讗讘诇 讝讘 讚诪讟诪讗 讘专讗讬讜转 讻讘讬诪讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讚讜转讛 转讟诪讗 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讘讜注诇讛

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: 鈥淚f 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鈥 (Leviticus 12:2). The superfluous phrase: 鈥淗er menstrual sickness she shall be impure,鈥 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.

讚讜转讛 转讟诪讗 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诇讬诇讜转 讚讜转讛 转讟诪讗 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讬讜诇讚转 讘讝讜讘 砖爪专讬讻讛 砖转砖讘 砖讘注讛 谞拽讬讬诐

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

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 谞拽讬讬诐 诪诇讬讚讛 诇讗 诪讚诐

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.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 讻讱 讬诪讬 诇讬讚转讛 诪讛 讬诪讬 谞讚转讛 讗讬谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇讝讬讘讛 讜讗讬谉 住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛 注讜诇讛 诪讛谉 讗祝 讬诪讬 诇讬讚转讛 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬谉 诇讝讬讘讛 讗讬谉 住驻讬专转 砖讘注讛 注讜诇讛 诪讛谉

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.

讜专讘讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪住转专 谞诪讬 住转专讛

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.

讜讻讬 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 讜专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 注诇 讻专讞讱 讛拽讬砖谉 讛讻转讜讘 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讚谞讬谉 讗驻砖专 诪砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 讜专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 注诇 讻专讞讱 讛拽讬砖谉 讛讻转讜讘

Rav A岣devoi 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 A岣devoi 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.

拽砖转讛 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讜讻讜壮

搂 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖驻转讛 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 诪讛讜 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讟诪讗讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 讟讛讜专讛

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 岣sda 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 岣nina 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖诇 诇诪诇讱 砖讬爪讗 讜讞讬讬诇讜转讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 讘讬讚讜注 砖讞讬讬诇讜转讬讜 砖诇 诪诇讱 讛谉

Rabbi 岣nina 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.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讘注讬 谞驻讬砖 讞讬讬诇讜转 讟驻讬

And Rav 岣sda 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.

转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讬诇讛 讜讬讜诐 讻诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 讜讬讜诪讜 砖砖驻转讛 诪谉 讛爪注专 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讚诐 讟注诪讗 讚诪谉 讛爪注专 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讚诐 讛讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讟讛讜专讛 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗

The Gemara raises an objection against the opinion of Rav 岣sda: 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 岣sda.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讚讟诪讗讛 讚驻住拽讬 诇讛讜 讞讬讬诇讜转 诇讙诪专讬 讗讘诇 诪谉 讛爪注专 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讚诐 讗讬诪专 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讚诐 诇讗 驻住拽讛 诪拽讜砖讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 驻住拽讛 讜讛讗 转讜谞讘讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚谞拽讟 诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains that Rav 岣sda 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鈥檚 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.

转谞谉 拽砖转讛 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讘转讜讱 讗讞讚 注砖专 讬讜诐 讜砖驻转讛 诪注转 诇注转 讜讬诇讚讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讬讜诇讚转 讘讝讜讘

The Gemara poses a difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina: 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.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诇砖 讘转专讬 讘拽讜砖讬 讜讞讚 讘砖讜驻讬 住讙讬

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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 拽砖转讛 砖诇砖讛 讜砖驻转讛 诪讝讛 讜诪讝讛 讗讜 砖拽砖转讛 砖谞讬诐 讜砖驻转讛 诪注转 诇注转 讛专讬 讝讜 讬讜诇讚转 讘讝讜讘 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

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 岣nina.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪转讞讬诇 拽讬砖讜讬 讘砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖驻转讛 诪注转 诇注转 讟诪讗讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

The Gemara explains that Rabbi 岣nina 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 岣nina, i.e., 岣nanya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 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).

讻诪讛 讛讬讗 拽砖讜讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 讛砖转讗 讞诪砖讬诐 诪拽砖讬讗 讗专讘注讬诐 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇讞讜诇讛 讻讗谉 诇讘专讬讗讛

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 岣sda 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 讗讬谉 讛讜诇讚 诪讟讛专 讗诇讗 讬诪讬诐 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讘讛谉 讝讘讛 讜专讘 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬诪讬诐 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇住驻讬专转 讝讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜诇讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘

搂 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,

Scroll To Top