|  |  | Previous Folio / Niddah Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah ### Folio 36a but according to Levi, who said that the sources were two, why should it be necessary to count seven days, seeing that the slightest [break]1 should suffice?2 — It is this that was meant: It is necessary for her that3 there shall be a slight [break]4 in order that [the following days] shall be counted as her seven clean ones. Come and hear: The days of her pregnancy supplement those of her nursing,5 and the days of her nursing supplement those of her pregnancy. In what manner? If there was a break of two 'onahs during her pregnancy and of one during her nursing, or of two during her nursing and of one during her pregnancy, or of one and a half during her pregnancy and of one and a half during her nursing, they are all combined into a series of three 'onahs.6 Now according to Rab who said that there was only one source this ruling is quite justified, for it is for this reason7 that there must be a break of three 'onahs,8 but according to Levi who said that there were two sources why9 should a break of three 'onahs be required, seeing that the slightest [break] should suffice?10 — It is this that was meant: It is necessary for her that there shall be a slight [break] in order that [the following days] shall be counted for her11 as three 'onahs. Come and hear: Both,12 however, are of the same opinion that where a woman observed a discharge after her clean blood period13 it suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time of her observation. Now according to Levi who said that there exist two sources one may well concede this ruling since it is for this reason14 that15 it suffices for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time of her observation,16 but according to Rab who said that there existed only one source, why should it suffice for her to reckon her uncleanness from the time of her observation seeing that17 she should have become unclean for twenty-four hours retrospectively? — This is a case where there was not time enough.18 But why should she not be unclean from her previous examination to her last examination?19 — As there was no interval of twenty-four hours20 the Rabbis enacted no preventive measure even in regard to uncleanness from the previous examination to the last examination. Come and hear: If a woman who was in childbirth during zibah had counted the prescribed number of clean days but did not undergo ritual immersion, and then observed a discharge, Beth Shammai gave their ruling in accordance with their own view and Beth Hillel ruled in accordance with their own view.21 Now according to Rab who said that there was only one source this ruling is quite justified, since it is for this reason22 that23 the discharge causes uncleanness both when wet and when dry; but according to Levi who said that there were two sources, why24 does the discharge cause uncleanness both when wet and when dry? — Levi can answer you: I maintain the same view as the Tanna who stated that 'both, however, are of the same opinion'.25 And if you prefer I might reply that here we are dealing with one whose discharge is continuous. But was it not stated that she had counted?26 — Here we are dealing with one who gave birth to a female child while in zibah and whose discharge ceased during the first week27 but continued again28 in the second week,27 he being of the opinion that the unclean days of childbirth in which no discharge is observed are counted among the clean days of one's zibah.29 Rabina said to R. Ashi: R. Shamen of Sikara30 told us, 'Mar Zutra once visited our place when he delivered a discourse In which he laid down: The law is to be restricted in agreement with Rab31 and it is also to be restricted in agreement with Levi'.32 R. Ashi stated: The law is in agreement with Rab both in his relaxations33 and his restrictions.34 Meremar in his discourse laid down: The law is in agreement with Rab both in his relaxations33 and restrictions.31 And the law is in agreement with Rab both in his relaxations33 and restrictions.31 To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files At the termination of the unclean period. For the closing up of the unclean source. As all the blood that is discharged subsequently emanates from the clean source it should suffice for the woman to wait after the unclean period no more than seven days and attain cleanness at their termination, irrespective of whether she observed any discharge during these days or not. At the termination of the unclean period. An indication that the unclean source had been closed. As regards the establishment of a regular period. Supra 10b q.v. notes. That there is only one source. In the absence of such a break the discharge cannot be regarded as having ceased. Since the blood after the unclean period emanates from the clean source, while the unclean one is closed. Cf. supra p. 247. n. 11 mut. mut. Even if she observed a discharge. Shammai and Hillel who differ on the question of twenty-four hours retrospective uncleanness. This is now presumed to mean even if a considerable time after, on the eighty-third or ninetieth day after child-birth, for instance. That there exist two sources. The blood from the unclean source having ceased for many days. Which (cf. prev. n.) is rightly regarded as a first discharge after many days from the unclean source. A first discharge in the case of a nursing-woman, as in that of another three categories of woman, does not cause any retrospective uncleanness. Since that source has also been discharging during the clean period and the present discharge cannot be regarded as a first one. Sc. less than a twenty-four hours interval has elapsed between the end of the clean period and the observation of the discharge. Hence even if the blood discharged had been in the outer chamber twenty-four hours previously the woman (since her blood at that time was still clean) could not be deemed unclean. If, for instance, on examining herself in the morning she observed a discharge, her uncleanness should be retrospective and all objects she handled during the night should be regarded as unclean. The previous answer that 'there was not time enough' cannot be given here, since in such a case there would have been no necessity whatsoever to state, what is so obvious, that in such a case it suffices to reckon the uncleanness from the time of observation. Cf. prev. n. but one. That before ritual immersion the discharge is unclean both when wet and when dry. That there existed only one source. In the absence of ritual immersion. Seeing that the required number of days had been counted and the unclean source must have been stopped. That if there was a discharge after the termination of the clean blood period, even though (as explained supra) more than twenty-four hours intervened, it suffices for the woman to be unclean from the time she observed a discharge; which shows that he also holds that there exist two sources. It does. Now, if the flow of blood had not ceased, how could she even begin to count? Of the two unclean weeks prescribed for a woman after the birth of a female. Lit., 'did not cease', 'break off'. Hence the statement that 'she had counted'. As in the second week, however, the discharge began again and continued into the third week, it conveys uncleanness, according to Beth Hillel, both when wet and when dry, since it emanates from an unclean source which the Torah did not regard as clean before the prescribed number of days had been counted and immersion had been performed. On the Tigris near Mahoza. That if the discharge was continuous from within the clean period into the unclean one following, it conveys uncleanness as if it had emanated from an unclean source. That where a discharge continued from within the clean days period into the clean one that follows, it is not regarded as clean blood since the continuous discharge is an indication that the unclean source had not yet closed up. That where the discharge continued from within the unclean period into the clean one following, it is regarded as clean after the last unclean day, despite its continuity. This is explained in the Gemara infra. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Niddah 36b MISHNAH. A WOMAN IN PROTRACTED LABOUR IS REGARDED AS A MENSTRUANT. IF HAVING BEEN IN LABOUR1 FOR THREE DAYS OF THE ELEVEN DAYS,2 SHE WAS RELIEVED FROM HER PAINS FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS AND THEN GAVE BIRTH, SHE IS REGARDED AS HAVING GIVEN BIRTH IN A ZIBAH;3 SO R. ELIEZER. R. JOSHUA RULED: THE RELIEF FROM PAIN4 MUST HAVE CONTINUED FOR A NIGHT AND A DAY,5 AS THE NIGHT AND THE DAY OF THE SABBATH.6 THE RELIEF [SPOKEN OF IS ONE] FROM PAIN, NOT FROM BLEEDING.7 HOW LONG MAY PROTRACTED LABOUR CONTINUE?8 R. MEIR RULED: 'EVEN FORTY OR FIFTY DAYS.9 R. JUDAH RULED: HER [NINTH] MONTH SUFFICES FOR HER.10 R. JOSE AND R. SIMEON RULED: PROTRACTED LABOUR CANNOT CONTINUE8 FOR MORE THAN TWO WEEKS. GEMARA. Is then11 every woman IN PROTRACTED LABOUR REGARDED AS A MENSTRUANT?12 — Rab replied: She13 is deemed to be a menstruant for one day.14 Samuel, however, ruled: The possibility must be taken into consideration15 that she might be relieved from her pain,16 while R. Isaac ruled: A discharge on the part of a woman in labour17 is of no consequence.18 But was it not stated, A WOMAN IN PROTRACTED LABOUR IS REGARDED AS A MENSTRUANT? — Raba replied: During the days of her menstruation19 SHE20 IS DEEMED TO BE A MENSTRUANT,21 but during the days of zibah 22 she is clean. And so it was also taught: If a woman is in protracted labour during the days of her menstruation19 she is deemed to be a menstruant,20 but if this occurred during the days of her zibah 22 she is clean. In what circumstances? If she was in labour for one day and had relief from pains for two days, or if she was in labour for two days and had relief from pain for one day,23 or if she was relieved from pains and then was again in labour and then was again relieved from pain,23 such a woman is regarded as having given birth in zibah; but if she was relieved from pain for one day and then was in labour for two days, or if she was relieved for two days and then was in labour for one day, or if she was in labour and then was relieved and then was again in labour, such a woman is not regarded as having given birth in zibah; the general rule being that where the pains of labour immediately precede24 birth the woman is not regarded as having given birth in zibah, but if release from pain immediately precedes24 birth the woman25 must be regarded as having given birth in zibah.26 Hananiah the son of R. Joshua's brother ruled: Provided her pains of labour were experienced27 on her third day.28 even though she had relief during the rest of that day, she29 is not regarded as having given birth in zibah. What does the expression 'The general rule' include? — It includes the ruling of Hananiah. Whence is this30 deduced? — Our31 Rabbis taught: Her blood32 refers to blood that is normally discharged,33 but not to such as is due to childbirth.34 You say. '[Not to such as is] due to childbirth'; is it not possible that only that blood is excluded35 which is due to an accident?34 As it was said, And if a woman have an issue of her blood,36 a discharge that is due to an accident is included;37 to what then could one apply the limitation of 'her blood'?36 Obviously to this: "Her blood" refers to blood that is normally discharged but not to such as is due to childbirth'. But38 what reason do you see for holding the blood of childbirth clean and that which is due to an accident unclean? I hold that which is due to childbirth clean since it is followed by cleanness,39 but hold that which is due to an accident unclean since it is not followed by cleanness. On the contrary! That which is due to an accident should be held clean since a discharge from a zab that is due to an accident is clean? — Now at all events we are dealing with the case of a woman, and we do not find that in the case of a woman blood due to an accident is ever clean. And if you prefer I might reply: What opinion do you hold? Is it to regard a discharge that is due to an accident clean and one that is due to childbirth unclean? Surely you cannot point to any occurrence that is more in the nature of an accident40 than this.41 If so,42 why should it not be said in the case of a menstruant also: Her issue43 refers to an issue that is normally discharged but not to such as is due to childbirth?44 You say, '[not to such as is due to] childbirth'; is it not possible that only that blood is excluded34 which is due to an accident?34 As it was said, And if a woman have an issue,43 a discharge that is due to an accident is included;45 to what then could one apply the limitation of 'her issue'?46 Obviously to this: 'Her issue' refers to an issue that is normally discharged but not to such as is due to childbirth!47 — Resh Lakish answered: Scripture said, She shall continue48 which implies:49 You have another continuation which is of the same nature as this one;50 and which is it?51 It is that of protracted labour during the days of her zibah. Might it not be suggested that this refers to protracted labour during the days of her menstruation? — Rather, said Samuel's father, Scripture said, Then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation,49 [implying] but not 'as in her zibah', from which it may be inferred that her zibah is clean; and which is it?51 It is that of protracted labour during the days of her zibah. Now, however, that it is written, Then she shall be unclean two weeks as in her menstruation,52 what need was there for the expression of 'her blood'?53 — If not for the expression 'her blood' it might have been presumed that the deduction 'as in her menstration'52 and not 'as in her zibah' implies that the discharge is clean even where the woman was relieved from pain,54 hence we were informed55 [that the discharge is clean only where it is due to childbirth].56 Shila b. Abina gave a practical decision in agreement with the view of Rab.57 When Rab's soul was about to depart to its eternal rest he58 said to R. Assi, 'Go and restrain him,59 and if he does not listen to you try to convince him'.60 The other thought that he was told, 'put him under the ban'.61 After Rab's soul came to its eternal rest he62 said to him,63 'Retract, for Rab has retracted'. 'If', the other retorted, 'he had retracted he would have told me so'.64 As he63 did not listen to him' the latter put him under the ban. 'Is not the Master', the other63 asked him, 'afraid of the fire?'65 'I', the former replied, 'am Issi b. Judah66 who is Issi b. Gur-aryeh67 who is Issi b. Gamaliel who is Issi b. Mahalalel, a brazen mortar68 over which rust has no power'. 'And I', the other retorted, 'am Shila b. Abina, an iron pestle that breaks the brazen mortar Thereupon R. Assi fell ill and they had to put him in hot [blankets] to relieve him from chills and in cold [compresses] to relieve him from heat,69 and his soul departed to its eternal rest. - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files And bleeding. That intervene between the menstrual periods and during which a discharge of blood is ordinarily attributed to zibah. As the pains ceased before birth it is evident that the previous discharge (cf. prev. n. but one) was not due to the labour but to zibah. Had the pains continued until birth all the previous bleeding would have been attributed to that of the labour which is Pentateuchally clean. As result of which the bleeding must be regarded as zibah and is not to be attributed to the labour. Not merely for twenty-four hours that began and ended at any time of the day or the night. Which begins at sunset of Friday and terminates at that of Saturday. I.e., even if she was bleeding, the relief from pain alone suffices to subject her to the uncleanness of zibah. In respect of exempting the woman from zibah (cf. supra p. 250. n. 8) even if she bled. Prior to childbirth; provided only that there was no period of relief from pain (as defined supra) before birth. Sc. only blood discharged during that month may be attributed to labour. Should the discharge begin during the 'eleven days' of the previous month and continue for three days she is deemed a zabah (on account of the discharge on these three days) even though the bleeding continued throughout the ninth month also. Since our Mishnah seems to lay down a general rule. But this, surely, is absurd. During the eleven days of zibah the woman could not be regarded as a MENSTRUANT but as a zabah. Even if the discharge in the course of her labour occurred during the eleven days of zibah. And on undergoing immersion in the evening she attains to cleanness. A woman who was not in labour, if she had such a discharge, must allow another day (free from any discharge) to pass before she can attain to cleanness. In accordance with Rabbinic law, though Pentateuchally this is not necessary. Before childbirth. As a result it would be evident that the discharge was one of zibah and the man cohabiting with the woman would be subject to kareth in Pentateuchal law. The woman, like any other who observed a discharge during the eleven days of zibah, must consequently remain unclean until another day, that was free from any further discharge, had passed. Even during the 'eleven days' of zibah. Sc. it is regarded as the blood of labour and the woman is deemed to be clean even on the same day. Sc. the period during which a discharge is deemed to be menstrual. Though in labour. The reason is given infra. Cf. prev. n. but one mut. mut. While still bleeding. Lit., 'near'. Where her discharge continued for three days. The release from pain serving as proof that the previous discharge was not due to childbirth but to zibah. Even if only for a short while. Ordinarily it is the discharge on the third day that causes a woman to be a confirmed or major zabah. A discharge on not more than one or two days only causes her to be a minor zabah. Since on the third day her relief did not extend over the whole night and the whole day. That the blood of labour is clean. Lit., 'for our'. Lev. XV, 25. Lit., 'on account of herself'. The latter being clean. Lit., 'or it is not but'. Lev. XV, 25. Since the text draws no distinctions. Seeing that the text does not specifically mention either the blood of childbirth or that which is due to an accident. The period of unclean blood after a childbirth (seven days for a male and fourteen days for a female) is followed by one of clean blood (thirty-three days for a male and sixty-six days for a female). Sc. that is not dependent on the woman's will. If then blood that is due to an accident (cf. prev. n.) is clean that which is due to childbirth must equally be clean. If the deduction just discussed is tenable. Lev. XV, 19. in the section dealing with a menstruant. But if that exposition is upheld how could it be said supra that blood of labour discharged during the menstrual period is unclean? Since the text draws no distinctions. Lev. XV, 19, in the section dealing with a menstruant. V. p. 253. n. 11. Lev. XII, 4, referring to clean blood. Since the expression could well have been omitted without destroying the general meaning of the text. Sc. in both cases the discharge is clean. I.e., how could zibah be clean? Lev. XII, 5. E.V., 'as in her impurity'. From which the same deductions, that a discharge of blood that was due to childbirth is clean, was made supra. Before the birth of the child. By the additional expression of 'her blood'. Relief from pain is an indication that the previous discharge was not due to childbirth and is therefore, unclean. That a woman who was in labour during the eleven days of zibah and discharged some blood is unclean for that day (v. supra). Having changed his former view. From acting in the same manner. Garyeh, lit., 'attract him'. Gadyeh, lit., 'cut him off'. R. Assi. Shila. He was a disciple of Rab. Sc. that he would suffer for his high handed action. [He probably meant that his name Assi bore resemblance to that of Assi b. Judah who bore a variety of names, v. Pes., Sonc. ed., p. 585. n. 6.]. Lit., 'lion's whelp' (cf. Gen. XLIX. 9). Assitha, play upon 'Assi' or 'Issi'. Aliter: They got him hot to relieve him from chills; they got him cold to relieve him from fever (Jast.). Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |