## Niddah Daf 37b

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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

מַאי לַָאו נְקִיִּים מִלֵּידָה? לָא, מִדָּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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.

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


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וְכִי דָנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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.

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


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

קִשְּׁתָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים וְכוּ׳.

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

וְרַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּבָעֵי נַפֵּישׁ חַיָּילוֹת טְפֵי.

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


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

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!

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


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

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.

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


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

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

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


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

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


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

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

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


###### Niddah 37b:20
[Niddah 37b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37b:20)

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

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


###### Niddah 37b:21
[Niddah 37b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Niddah/r/37b:21)

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

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