## Niddah Daf 37a

###### Niddah 37a:1
[Niddah 37a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:1)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 37a:2
[Niddah 37a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:2)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: קוֹשִׁי מַהוּ שֶׁתִּסְתּוֹר בְּזִיבָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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*?**


###### Niddah 37a:3
[Niddah 37a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:3)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 37a:4
[Niddah 37a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:4)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 37a:5
[Niddah 37a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:5)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 37a:6
[Niddah 37a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:6)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 37a:7
[Niddah 37a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:7)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 37a:8
[Niddah 37a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:8)

לָא, לְטַמּוֹיֵהּ לְהַהִיא טִיפָּה בְּמַשָּׂא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 37a:9
[Niddah 37a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:9)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 37a:10
[Niddah 37a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:10)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Niddah 37a:11
[Niddah 37a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:11)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 37a:12
[Niddah 37a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:12)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 37a:13
[Niddah 37a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:13)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Niddah 37a:14
[Niddah 37a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:14)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Niddah 37a:15
[Niddah 37a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:15)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Niddah 37a:16
[Niddah 37a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:16)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Niddah 37a:17
[Niddah 37a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:17)

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״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Niddah 37a:18
[Niddah 37a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:18)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Niddah 37a:19
[Niddah 37a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37a:19)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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**