MISHNA: With regard to a pregnant woman who experiences labor pains, and they are accompanied by an emission of blood, her status is that of a menstruating woman. If she experienced these pains accompanied by emissions of blood for three consecutive days within the eleven days between periods of menstruation, during which time emissions of blood render a woman a zava, and she rested from labor for a twenty-four-hour period, i.e., the pangs subsided, and she then gave birth, it indicates that the emissions were not due to her imminent labor, and this woman is considered one who gives birth as a zava. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

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 necessarily from the flow of blood. In other words, the presence of labor pangs determines whether this blood is due to labor or the impure blood of ziva. Accordingly, if the pangs cease for twenty-four hours, she is considered a zava even if blood was discharging continuously from when she experienced her labor pains.

How long before birth is pain attributable to her labor pains, which means that the blood is not considered blood of ziva? Rabbi Meir says: Even forty or fifty days before the birth, any blood she sees during the eleven days of ziva is not considered blood of ziva. Rabbi Yehuda says: It is sufficient that this halakha applies only from within one month of her due date. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: Labor pains do not occur more than two weeks before birth. Accordingly, if she experiences bleeding for three consecutive days during eleven days of ziva that occur before this time, she is a zava.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a pregnant woman who experiences an emission of menstrual blood due to labor pains is considered a menstruating woman. This statement apparently applies to all blood due to labor. The Gemara therefore asks: Is this to say that any woman who experiences an emission due to labor pains is a menstruating woman? But if a woman experiences an emission due to labor pains in the eleven days of ziva, she is not rendered a zava, nor can this render her a menstruating woman.

Rav said: It is correct that a woman who experiences an emission of blood due to labor during the eleven days of ziva is not rendered a zava, or even a lesser zava, who must observe one clean day for the day she experienced an emission. But she is a menstruating woman for one day, i.e., she is prohibited to her husband on the day of the emission, and in the evening she may immerse and become permitted to him. And Shmuel said: It is a rabbinic decree that she must observe a clean day, as we are concerned lest she rest from labor and thereby be rendered a lesser zava, as the cessation of pangs would indicate that her emission was not due to her imminent labor.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A woman who experiences labor pains during the eleven days of ziva is nothing, i.e., she is completely pure and is permitted to her husband. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the mishna that a woman who experiences labor pains is a menstruating woman? This apparently includes all women who experience an emission due to labor, even if it occurs during the eleven days of ziva.

Rava said: The mishna means that if she experienced an emission due to labor during the days of menstruation, she is considered a menstruating woman; if she experienced the emission during the days of ziva, she is pure. And it is taught likewise in a baraita: A woman who experiences labor pains during the days of menstruation is a menstruating woman; if she experiences them during the days of ziva, she is pure.

The baraita continues: How so, i.e., when does an emission during the eleven days of ziva render a woman one who gives birth as a zava? If she experienced labor pains for one day and then rested from labor for two days, and she experienced an emission on all three days; or if she experienced labor pains for two days and rested from labor for one day, and she experienced bleeding on all three days; or if she rested from labor for one day and she then experienced labor pains for one day, and again rested from labor for one day, and she experienced bleeding on all three days; in each of these cases this woman is considered one who gives birth as a zava, as the cessation of labor pains indicates that the emission of blood is not due to her imminent labor.

But if she rested from labor for one day and then experienced labor pains for two days; or if she rested from labor for two days and experienced labor pains for one day; or if she experienced labor pains for one day and then rested from labor for one day, and again experienced labor pains for one day; this woman is not considered one who gives birth as a zava, since the labor pains indicate that the blood is due to her imminent labor. This is the principle of the matter: If she experienced labor pains adjacent to giving birth, this woman is not considered one who gives birth as a zava; if she was resting from labor adjacent to giving birth, this woman is considered one who gives birth as a zava.

Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother, says: In any situation where she experiences an emission due to her labor pains that occur on her third day, she is not a zava. Even if she was in a state of resting from labor for the entire third day, with the exception of one hour of labor pains, this woman is not considered one who gives birth as a zava, since a woman is considered to be resting from labor on the third day only if she was resting for the entire day.

The Gemara asks: The statement that this is the principle of the matter serves to add what? The Gemara answers: It serves to add the ruling of Ḥananya, son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother, that for a woman to be considered one who gives birth as a zava, she must have rested from labor for the entire third day.

§ The mishna teaches that if a woman experiences bleeding due to labor pains during the eleven days of ziva she is not considered a zava. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a zava: “And if a woman has an issue of her blood many days” (Leviticus 15:25). The term “her blood” indicates that only her blood that comes due to herself is impure as blood of ziva, but not blood that comes due to her child.

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Do you say the verse excludes blood that comes due to her child? Or is it only excluding blood that comes due to circumstances beyond her control? When the verse states: “And if a woman has an issue of her blood,” the inclusion of ziva due to circumstances beyond her control is already stated in the inclusive phrase: Has an issue. If so, how do I realize the meaning of the term “her blood”? The verse is teaching that only her blood that comes due to herself is impure as blood of ziva, but not blood that comes due to her child.

The Gemara asks: But given that the verse contains both an inclusion and an exclusion, what did you see to deem pure the blood emitted due to the child, and to deem impure the blood she sees due to circumstances beyond her control? Perhaps the opposite is the case, that blood emitted due to circumstances beyond her control is pure, whereas blood caused by labor is impure. The Gemara answers: I deem pure the blood emitted due to the child, as there is a period of purity after it, i.e., her days of purity following her days of impurity; and I deem impure the blood she sees due to circumstances beyond her control, as there is no period of purity after it.

The Gemara objects: On the contrary, I should deem the blood pure in a case where it was emitted due to circumstances beyond her control, as an emission of ziva due to circumstances beyond one’s control in the case of a male zav is pure. The Gemara explains: Now, in any event, we are dealing with the halakha of a woman, and in the case of a woman we do not find that an emission caused by circumstances beyond her control is pure. It is therefore preferable to deem impure an emission caused by circumstances beyond her control, and to deem pure an emission due to childbirth.

The Gemara adds: And if you wish, say instead: What is your opinion, that one should deem the blood pure in a case where it was emitted due to circumstances beyond her control, and deem the blood impure in a case where it was emitted due to the child? But you have no greater instance of circumstances beyond her control than this, the experience of labor pains.

The Gemara objects: If it is so that the above verse is interpreted in such a manner, then in the case a menstruating woman as well, with regard to whom the verse states: “And a woman, if she has an issue, and her issue in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her menstruation seven days” (Leviticus 15:19), let us say that when the verse states “her issue” this indicates that only her issue that comes due to herself renders her a menstruating woman, but not an issue that comes due to her child.

The Gemara elaborates: Do you say that the verse excludes an issue that comes due to her child? Or is it excluding only an issue that comes due to circumstances beyond her control? When the verse states: “And a woman if she has an issue,” the inclusion of an issue due to circumstances beyond her control is already stated. If so, how do I realize the meaning of the term “her issue”? The verse is teaching that only her issue that comes due to herself renders her a menstruating woman, but not an issue that comes due to her child. If the verse can be interpreted in this manner, why does the baraita teach that a woman who experiences labor pains during the days of menstruation is considered a menstruating woman?

Reish Lakish said: The verse states with regard to the days of purity after childbirth: “She shall observe the blood of purity” (Leviticus 12:5). This indicates that you have another instance of an observance that is like this one, i.e., where the woman is not rendered impure by an emission of blood. And which is this other case? This is the case of blood that is emitted due to labor pains during the eleven days of ziva. An emission during the days of menstruation, by contrast, renders the woman a menstruating woman. The Gemara asks: But one can say that this other case is where a woman has an emission of blood due to labor pains during the days of menstruation, not where she experiences an emission during the days of ziva.

Rather, Shmuel’s father said the verse states: “And she shall be impure two weeks, as in her menstruation” (Leviticus 12:5), and not: As in her ziva. By inference, one may conclude that there is an instance in which an emission of blood that occurs during her days of ziva is pure. And which case is this? This is the case of blood that is emitted due to labor pains during the eleven days of ziva.

The Gemara asks: And now that it is written: “And she shall be impure two weeks as in her menstruation,” why do I need the term “her blood” (Leviticus 15:25) from which it is likewise derived that blood emitted due to labor pains during the eleven days of ziva is pure? The Gemara answers: If not for the term “her blood,” I would say the verse is teaching that a woman who gives birth is impure as in her menstruation, and not as in her ziva, and therefore, even if she experienced bleeding during her days of ziva in a state of resting from labor pains, she remains pure. Consequently, the term “her blood” teaches us that this halakha applies only if she experiences bleeding due to labor pains.

§ According to Rav, a woman who emits blood during the eleven days of ziva due to labor pains is considered like a menstruating woman for that day, i.e., she is prohibited to her husband until she immerses in the evening. The Gemara relates that Sheila bar Avina ruled in an actual case in accordance with the opinion of Rav. The Gemara further relates that when Rav was dying, he said to Rav Asi: Go and hide this halakha, i.e., inform Sheila bar Avina that my ruling is incorrect. And if he does not listen to you, drag him [garyei] to your side with convincing claims. Rav Asi misheard and thought that Rav said to him gadyei, excommunicate him.

After Rav died, Rav Asi went to Sheila bar Avina and said to him: Retract your ruling, as Rav himself retracted his opinion. Sheila bar Avina said to Rav Asi: If it is so, that he retracted his opinion, he would have told me, as I was his student; he would not have sent a messenger to inform me of such a retraction. Consequently, Sheila bar Avina did not listen to Rav Asi. Rav Asi excommunicated him, as he thought that this was Rav’s instruction. Sheila bar Avina said to Rav Asi: But is the Master not afraid of the fire, i.e., of a punishment for offending me?

Rav Asi said to him, linking in a fanciful manner his own name to the various names of an important tanna: I am Isi ben Yehuda, who is Isi ben Gur Arye, who is Isi ben Gamliel, who is Isi ben Mahalalel, and this name alludes to a copper mortar [asita], over which rot has no power, i.e., no harm will befall me. Sheila bar Avina said to Rav Asi: And I am Sheila bar Avina, and my father’s name alludes to an iron pestle [bukhna], which smashes a copper mortar, i.e., harm may befall you through the merit of my ancestors.

The Gemara relates that Rav Asi fell ill and contracted one sickness after another, so that when he entered the heat of a fever, he exited a sickness where he felt cold, and when he entered into a sickness where he felt cold, he exited the heat of a fever. Eventually, Rav Asi died.