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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

§ 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,