נדה לז

נדה לז

אֲזַל שֵׁילָא, אֲמַר לִדְבֵיתְהוּ: צְבִית לִי זְוַודְתָּא דְּלָא לֵיזִיל וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ לְרַב מִילֵּי עִילָּוַאי. צְבִיתָה לֵיהּ זְוַודְתָּא. נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּשֵׁילָא, חֲזוֹ דְּפָרְחָא אָסָא מֵהַאי פּוּרְיָא לְהַאי פּוּרְיָא, אָמְרִי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ עֲבַדוּ רַבָּנַן פְּיָיסָא.

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.

בָּעֵי רָבָא: קוֹשִׁי מַהוּ שֶׁתִּסְתּוֹר בְּזִיבָה?

§ 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?

דָּבָר הַמְטַמֵּא סוֹתֵר, וְהַאי נָמֵי מְטַמֵּא כִּימֵי נִדָּה הוּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא דָּבָר הַגּוֹרֵם סוֹתֵר, וְהַאי לָאו גּוֹרֵם הוּא?

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אוֹנֶס בְּזִיבָה יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוֹרֵם, וְסוֹתֵר!

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאיֵי, הַאי נָמֵי גּוֹרֵם הוּא, דִּתְנַן: רָאָה רְאִיָּיה רִאשׁוֹנָה — בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, שְׁנִיָּה — בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, שְׁלִישִׁית — אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ.

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.

וּלְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאָמַר: אַף בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, הָכִי נָמֵי כֵּיוָן דְּלָא גָרֵים לָא סָתַר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָכִי נָמֵי.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אַף בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, בָּרְבִיעִית אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. מַאי לַָאו לִסְתִירָה?

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.

לָא, לְטַמּוֹיֵהּ לְהַהִיא טִיפָּה בְּמַשָּׂא.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, בָּרְבִיעִית אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. לְקׇרְבָּן אָמַרְתִּי, וְלֹא לִסְתִירָה.

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.

אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, תִּפְשׁוֹט דְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוֹרֵם סוֹתֵר, לְרַבָּנַן מַאי?

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?

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי אֲבוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אָבִין: מָה גָּרַם לוֹ זוֹבוֹ — שִׁבְעָה, לְפִיכָךְ סוֹתֵר שִׁבְעָה; מָה גָּרַם לוֹ קִרְיוֹ — יוֹם אֶחָד, לְפִיכָךְ סוֹתֵר יוֹם אֶחָד.

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.

מַאי שִׁבְעָה? אִילֵּימָא דִּמְטַמֵּא שִׁבְעָה — הַאי ״מָה זוֹבוֹ טָמֵא שִׁבְעָה״ מִבָּעֵי לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא לָאו דָּבָר הַגּוֹרֵם סוֹתֵר, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוֹרֵם אֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נָקְטִינַן, אֵין קוֹשִׁי סוֹתֵר בְּזִיבָה. וְאִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ תַּנָּא דְּאָמַר סוֹתֵר — הָהוּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא.

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.

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי מָרִינוּס אוֹמֵר: אֵין לֵידָה סוֹתֶרֶת בְּזִיבָה. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה? אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֵינָהּ סוֹתֶרֶת וְאֵינָהּ עוֹלָה. רָבָא אָמַר: אֵינָהּ סוֹתֶרֶת וְעוֹלָה.

§ 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.

אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְאַחַר תִּטְהָר״ — ״אַחַר״, ״אַחַר״ לְכוּלָּן, שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא טוּמְאָה מַפְסֶקֶת בֵּינֵיהֶם.

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.

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא עוֹלָה — הַיְינוּ דְּלָא מַפְסְקָה טוּמְאָה, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵינָהּ עוֹלָה — אַפְסִיק לֵיהּ לֵידָה! וְאַבָּיֵי אָמַר לָךְ: שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא טוּמְאַת זִיבָה מַפְסֶקֶת בֵּינֵיהֶם.

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.

אָמַר רָבָא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: ״מִזּוֹבָהּ״ — ״מִזּוֹבָהּ״ וְלֹא מִנִּגְעָהּ, ״מִזּוֹבָהּ״ וְלֹא מִלֵּידָתָהּ. וְאַבָּיֵי אָמַר לָךְ: תְּנִי חֲדָא ״מִזּוֹבָהּ״ וְלֹא מִנִּגְעָהּ, וְלָא תִּתְנֵי ״וְלֹא מִלֵּידָתָהּ״.

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.

וְרָבָא, הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא ״מִזּוֹבָהּ״ וְלֹא מִלֵּידָתָהּ, אַיְּידֵי דְּאִצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לֵידָה, תְּנָא נִגְעָהּ אַטּוּ לֵידָה. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ ״מִזּוֹבָהּ״ וְלֹא מִנִּגְעָהּ, הַאי מִ״וְּכִי יִטְהַר הַזָּב מִזּוֹבוֹ״ נָפְקָא — ״מִזּוֹבוֹ״ וְלֹא מִנִּגְעוֹ!

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.

וְאַבָּיֵי — חַד בְּזָב וְחַד בְּזָבָה. וּצְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא

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

בְּזָב — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס, אֲבָל זָבָה — דִּמְטַמְּיָא בְּאוֹנֶס אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

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.

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּזָבָה — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְטַמְּיָא בִּרְאִיּוֹת כִּבְיָמִים, אֲבָל זָב דִּמְטַמֵּא בִּרְאִיּוֹת כִּבְיָמִים — אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

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.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: ״דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ.

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.

״דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַלֵּילוֹת, ״דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַיּוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב, שֶׁצְּרִיכָה שֶׁתֵּשֵׁב שִׁבְעָה נְקִיִּים.

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.

מַאי לַָאו נְקִיִּים מִלֵּידָה? לָא, מִדָּם.

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.

וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דְּתַנְיָא: ״כִּימֵי נִדָּתָהּ״ — כָּךְ יְמֵי לֵידָתָהּ, מָה יְמֵי נִדָּתָהּ אֵין רְאוּיִן לְזִיבָה וְאֵין סְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה עוֹלָה מֵהֶן, אַף יְמֵי לֵידָתָהּ שֶׁאֵין רְאוּיִן לְזִיבָה — אֵין סְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה עוֹלָה מֵהֶן.

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.

וְרָבָא, הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מִסְתָּר נָמֵי סָתְרָה.

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.

וְכִי דָנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר?

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.

אָמַר רַב אַחָדְבוּי בַּר אַמֵּי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: עַל כׇּרְחָךְ הִקִּישָׁן הַכָּתוּב. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַב אַחָדְבוּי בַּר אַמֵּי אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר. וְרַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: עַל כׇּרְחָךְ הִקִּישָׁן הַכָּתוּב.

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.

קִשְּׁתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים וְכוּ׳.

§ 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.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שָׁפְתָה מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, מַהוּ? רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: טְמֵאָה, רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: טְהוֹרָה.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁיָּצָא, וַחֲיָילוֹתָיו לְפָנָיו — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁחֲיָילוֹתָיו שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ הֵן.

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.

וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּבָעֵי נַפֵּישׁ חַיָּילוֹת טְפֵי.

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.

תְּנַן: רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לַיְלָה וָיוֹם כְּלֵילֵי שַׁבָּת וְיוֹמוֹ, שֶׁשָּׁפְתָה מִן הַצַּעַר וְלֹא מִן הַדָּם. טַעְמָא דְּמִן הַצַּעַר וְלֹא מִן הַדָּם, הָא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה — טְהוֹרָה. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא!

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.

אָמַר לְךָ רַב חִסְדָּא: לָא מִבַּעְיָא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה דִּטְמֵאָה, דְּפָסְקִי לְהוּ חַיָּילוֹת לִגְמָרֵי, אֲבָל מִן הַצַּעַר וְלֹא מִן הַדָּם, אֵימַר: כִּי הֵיכִי דְּמִדָּם לָא פָּסְקָה, מִקּוֹשִׁי נָמֵי לָא פָּסְקָה, וְהָא תּוּנְבָּא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דִּנְקַט לַהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

תְּנַן: קִשְּׁתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים בְּתוֹךְ אַחַד עָשָׂר יוֹם, וְשָׁפְתָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת, וְיָלְדָה — הֲרֵי זוֹ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב.

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.

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא כִּדְקָתָנֵי, לְמָה לִי שָׁלֹשׁ? בִּתְרֵי בְּקוֹשִׁי וְחַד בְּשׁוֹפִי סַגִּי!

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.

אֶלָּא לָאו הָכִי קָאָמַר: קִשְּׁתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה, וְשָׁפְתָה מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, אוֹ שֶׁקִּשְּׁתָה שְׁנַיִם, וְשָׁפְתָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת — הֲרֵי זוֹ יוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא!

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.

אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לָא, לְעוֹלָם כִּדְקָתָנֵי, וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּמַתְחֵיל קִישּׁוּי בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי, וְשָׁפְתָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת — טְמֵאָה, לְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵרַבִּי חֲנִינָא.

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).

כַּמָּה הִיא קִשּׁוּיָהּ? רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳. הַשְׁתָּא חֲמִשִּׁים מְקַשְּׁיָא, אַרְבָּעִים מִיבַּעְיָא? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לָא קַשְׁיָא — כָּאן לְחוֹלָה, כָּאן לִבְרִיאָה.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: אֵין הַוָּלָד מְטַהֵר אֶלָּא יָמִים הָרְאוּיִין לִהְיוֹת בָּהֶן זָבָה, וְרַב אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בְּיָמִים הָרְאוּיִין לִסְפִירַת זָבָה. אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: וּלְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַב

§ 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,