Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah

Folio 37a

Raba enquired: Does labour²  render all previous counting in zibah³  void? Does any discharge that causes uncleanness render all previous counting void and, therefore, this also [does it, since] it causes uncleanness like the days of menstruation; or is it possible that only that which⁴  causes the uncleanness of zibah that renders all the previous counting void, and this, therefore, [does not do it, since] it is no cause of such uncleanness? — Abaye replied: A zibah that is due to an accident provides the answer,⁵  for this is no cause of the uncleanness of zibah⁶  and yet renders all previous counting void.⁷  The other retorted: Indeed, this⁸  also is a cause of the uncleanness of zibah, for we have learnt: If he observed a first discharge he must be examined, if he observed a second discharge he must be examined, but if he observed a third he need not be examined.⁹  But according to R. Eliezer who ruled, 'Even after a third discharge he must be examined'¹⁰  would you also maintain that, since it is no cause of the uncleanness of zibah, it does not render the previous counting void? — The other replied: According to R. Eliezer the law is so indeed.

Come and hear: R. Eliezer ruled, Even after a third discharge he must be examined, but after a fourth one he need not be examined.¹¹  Does not this refer to the rendering of previous counting void?¹²  — No, to the imposition on that drop of an uncleanness that may be conveyed through carriage.

Come and hear: After a third discharge. R. Eliezer ruled, he must be examined; after a fourth one he need not be examined; and it is in regard to a sacrifice that I said this¹³  but not in regard to the rendering void of all previous counting.¹⁴  But the fact is that¹⁵  according to R. Eliezer you may well solve from here that even that which causes no uncleanness of zibah renders all previous counting void. What, however, [it is asked], is the solution of the problem according to the Rabbis? — Come and hear what the father of R. Abin learnt: 'What had his zibah caused him? Seven days.¹⁶  Hence it renders void the counting of seven days. What had his emission of semen caused him? The [uncleanness of] one day. Hence it renders void the counting of one day'. Now what is meant by 'seven days'? If it be suggested that it causes him to be unclean for seven days, [the objection would arise that] in that case it should have been said: As on account of his zibah he is unclean for seven days. Consequently¹⁷  it follows, that only that which causes the uncleanness of zibah renders void the counting of the seven days, but that which does not cause the uncleanness of zibah does not render void all previous counting. This is conclusive. Abaye stated: We have an accepted tradition that labour does not render void all previous counting in zibah; and should you find a Tanna who said that it did render the counting void, that must be R. Eliezer.¹⁸

It was taught: R. Marinus ruled, A birth does not render void the previous counting after a zibah.¹⁹  The question was raised: Is it included in the counting?²⁰  — Abaye replied: It neither renders void the days that were previously counted²¹  nor is it counted in the prescribed days.²¹  Raba replied: It does not render void the days counted and it is counted among the prescribed days.²²  Whence, said Raba, do I derive this? From what was taught: And after that she shall be clean,²³  'after' means after all of them, implying that no uncleanness may intervene between them.²⁴  Now if you agree that [these days]²⁵  are included one can well see the justification for saying that no uncleanness may intervene between them, but if you contend that these days²⁵  are not included the birth, surely, would cause a break between them. And Abaye?²⁶  — He can answer you: The meaning is that the uncleanness of zibah shall not intervene between them.²⁷  Whence, said Raba, do I derive this? From what was taught: Of her issue,²³  'of her issue' implies but not of her leprosy,²⁸  'of her issue' but not of her childbirth.²⁹  And Abaye?³⁰  — He can answer you: Deduce once 'Of her issue³¹  but not of her leprosy' and do not deduce again, 'but not of her childbirth'. And Raba?³²  — What an argument is this!³³  If you agree that 'of her issue'³¹  implies 'but not of her childbirth' one can well justify the text; for since it was required for the deduction about childbirth, leprosy also was mentioned on account of childbirth; but if you contend that 'of her issue' implies only 'but not of her leprosy', [the objection would arise] that this could be deduced from And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue,³⁴  which implies 'of his issue' and not of his leprosy. And Abaye?³⁰  — One³⁵  refers to a zab and the other to a zabah, both being necessary. For if the All Merciful had only written

1. It was customary to lay a myrtle on a bier (Rashi).
2. That was accompanied by bleeding.
3. The prescribed seven days.
4. By appearing on three days.
5. Lit., proves'.
6. As was stated supra.
7. V. infra.
8. Zibah that is due to an accident.
9. Zabim II, 2. Thus it is shown that a third discharge, even if it was due to an accident, provided the first two discharges were not due to such a cause, renders a person a confirmed or major zab.
10. Zabim l.c., which proves that zibah that is due to an accident never causes a person to be a confirmed zab.
11. Cf. supra 35a, Naz. 65b.
12. An objection against Raba, who laid down that that which is no cause of the uncleanness of zibah does not render void the previous counting.
13. That an examination is necessary.
14. The counting being always void and is in no way dependent on an examination. Now does not this then prove that even that which causes no uncleanness of zibah renders the counting void?
15. Contrary to what has been explained before.
16. This is explained presently.
17. Since the expression used was 'caused'.
18. Who holds that zibah due to an accident, though it causes no zibah uncleanness, renders void all previous counting.
19. If the counting was interrupted by a birth it may be continued after the birth had taken place.
20. Sc. if the birth took place during the seven days following a zibah, and the days following it were free from all discharge, are these days counted as clean ones and make up the required number of seven?
21. The counting must be resumed after the clean days of birth have passed.
22. If the days after birth were free from all discharge.
23. Lev. XV. 28.
24. Supra 33b.
25. That follow a birth.
26. How in view of this argument can he maintain his view?
27. That of childbirth does not matter.
28. Sc. as soon as she counted the days prescribed for zibah (cf. Lev. XV, 28) she brings the required sacrifice, and attains cleanness from zibah irrespective of whether she was or was not still afflicted with leprosy.
29. As soon as she is free from her zibah she begins to count the seven days and need not wait until the unclean days of childbirth had passed. It is thus obvious that a birth during the days of zibah does not render void the previous counting and that the days following birth are included in the counting.
30. How in view of this argument can he maintain his view?
31. Lev. XV, 28.
32. How can he make two deductions from the same expression?
33. Lit., that, what'.
34. Lev. XV, 13.
35. Of the two texts cited.

Said Abaye: Whence do I derive this?⁴  From what was taught: Her sickness shall she be unclean,⁵  includes the man who had intercourse with her; 'her sickness shall she be unclean' includes the nights;⁶  'her sickness shall she be unclean' includes a woman who gave birth in zibah who is required to continue in her uncleanness until seven clean days have passed. Now does not this mean: Clean from the uncleanness of birth?⁷  — No, clean from that of blood.⁸

Abaye further stated, Whence do I derive this?⁹  From what was taught: As are the days of her menstruation so are the days of her bearing. As the days of her menstruation are not suitable [for counting as the days] after her zibah¹⁰  and they cannot be included in the counting of the prescribed seven days, so also the days following her bearing which¹¹  are not suitable [for counting as the days] after her zibah may not¹²  be included in the counting of the seven prescribed days. And Raba? — This is in agreement with¹³  R. Eliezer who ruled: It¹⁴  also renders void all previous counting.¹⁵  But may an inference be drawn from the impossible¹⁶  for the possible?¹⁷  R. Ahadboy b. Ammi replied: This is the view of R. Eliezer who holds that the possible may be inferred from the impossible.¹⁸  R. Shesheth, however, replied: Scripture has perforce compared them¹⁹  to one another.²⁰

There are some who say: R. Ahadboy b. Ammi citing R. Shesheth replied. This represents the view of R. Eliezer who holds that the possible may be deduced from the impossible; but R. Papa replied: Scripture has perforce compared them to one another.

IF HAVING BEEN IN LABOUR FOR THREE DAYS etc. The question was raised: What is the ruling where she was relieved from both?²¹  — R. Hisda replied: She is unclean.²²  R. Hanina replied: She is clean.²³  R. Hanina explained: This may be compared to a king who, when going on a tour, is preceded²⁴  by his troops and it is known that they are the king's troops.²⁵  But R. Hisda, said: [Immediately before his arrival] he would require even more troops.²⁶

We learnt: R. JOSHUA RULED, THE RELIEF FROM PAIN MUST HAVE CONTINUED FOR A NIGHT AND A DAY. AS THE NIGHT AND THE DAY OF THE SABBATH. THE RELIEF [SPOKEN OF IS ONE] FROM PAIN, NOT FROM BLEEDING. The reason then²⁷  is because [she had relief] FROM PAIN and NOT FROM BLEEDING, but if she had relief from both²¹  she is clean. Does not this present an objection against R. Hisda? — R. Hisda can answer you: There was no need to state that, if she had relief from both, she is unclean, since [metaphorically] the troops completely disappeared; but even where she had relief from pain and not from bleeding where it might have been presumed that as she had not ceased to bleed she has not ceased to labour either and that it was merely stupor that seized her. Hence we were informed [that even in this case she is unclean].

We learnt: IF HAVING BEEN IN LABOUR FOR THREE DAYS OF THE ELEVEN DAYS, SHE WAS RELIEVED FROM HER PAINS FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS AND THEN GAVE BIRTH. SHE IS REGARDED AS HAVING GIVEN BIRTH IN ZIBAH. Now, how are we to imagine the circumstances? If it be suggested: As it was stated,²⁸  [the objection would arise:] What need was there to mention THREE seeing that it suffices²⁹  if the labour lasted two days and the relief³⁰  one day? Consequently it must be this that was meant: IF HAVING BEEN IN LABOUR FOR THREE DAYS she was relieved from both,³¹  or if having been in labour for two days, SHE WAS RELIEVED FROM HER PAINS FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS, SHE IS REGARDED AS HAVING GIVEN BIRTH IN ZIBAH, and this presents, does it not, an objection against R. Hanina? — R. Hanina can answer you: No; the circumstances may in fact be as stated,³²  but it is this that we were informed, that although the labour continued³³  [for a part only] of the third day and she was relieved from her pains for twenty-four hours³⁴  she is nevertheless unclean, contrary to the view³⁵  of R. Hanina.³⁶

HOW LONG MAY PROTRACTED LABOUR CONTINUE? R. MEIR RULED etc. Now since protracted labour may continue for FIFTY DAYS is there any necessity to mention FORTY? — R. Hisda replied: This is no difficulty, the one³⁷  referring to an ailing woman and the other³⁸  to a woman in good health.

R. Levi ruled: [The birth of] a child is a cause of the cleanness of those days only in which a woman may normally become a zabah,³⁹  but Rab ruled: Even in the days that are suitable for the counting prescribed for a zabah.⁴⁰  Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: And according to Rab's view⁴¹

1. Only a discharge that made its appearance on three successive days causes her uncleanness.
2. Even on the same day.
3. Cf. B.K. 24a.
4. His ruling supra 37a.
5. Lev. XII, 2.
6. Though the text speaks only of days.
7. Sc. that no birth must intervene; from which it follows that if it did intervene the days following it may not be included in the prescribed seven days.
8. Only those days on which a discharge occurred may not be included in the counting, but where the birth was free from bleeding the days following it may well be included.
9. His ruling supra 37a.
10. Since the zibah period follows that of menstruation and not vice versa, while a subsequent menstruation period cannot begin before seven clean days have passed after the zibah had ceased.
11. Like those of menstruation.
12. If birth took place during the counting.
13. Lit., 'this whose'.
14. Childbirth.
15. From which it is self-evident that the days following it cannot be included in the counting of the seven days. According to the Rabbis, however, whose view Raba follows, birth does not render void all previous counting and the days following, it may well be included in the prescribed seven days.
16. Menstruation during zibah.
17. Birth, which may well occur during a zibah period.
18. Cf. Men. 82b.
19. Birth and menstruation.
20. Only a gezerah shawah (v. Glos.) may be questioned, but not a comparison made in the Biblical text itself (hekkesh) despite any argument that might be raised against it.
21. Pain and bleeding.
22. Since at any rate she had relief from pain it is obvious that the previous bleeding was not due to childbirth.
23. The relief from both is an indication that the bleeding also was due to childbirth. Only where the bleeding continued and the pain ceased is it manifest that the former was not due to the labour.
24. By a day or two.
25. Similarly the pains and bleeding that precede childbirth must be ascribed to it despite the interval (cf. prev. n.) between them.
26. As the bleeding ceased it must be obvious that the childbirth had no connection with it.
27. Why the woman is unclean.
28. LABOUR FOR THREE DAYS, relief FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS, and bleeding all the time.
29. For the woman to be unclean.
30. From pain but not from bleeding.
31. Pain and bleeding.
32. LABOUR FOR THREE DAYS, relief FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS, and bleeding all the time.
33. Cf. Rashal. Cur. edd. 'began'.
34. And not for a full night and a full day.
35. Lit., 'to take out'.
36. Sc. Hananiah the son of the brother of R. Joshua who stated (supra 36b), 'Provided her pains of labour were experienced on her third day … she is not regarded as having given birth in zibah'.
37. Lit., 'here', the number fifty.
38. Forty.
39. I.e., the eleven days between the menstruation periods. If a birth, however, takes place after these 'days the woman becomes unclean as a menstruant (as stated supra).
40. Sc. if labour began during the eleven days of zibah not only are these days clean but also the seven days that follow them. Only when the bleeding continued beyond these seven days does the woman become unclean as a menstruant.
41. That even the days following the zibah period are clean if the labour began during the zibah days.