to a desecration of Shabbat. If they were to engage in sexual intercourse on a Sunday, Monday, or Tuesday, their wives might give birth on Shabbat, either 271, 272, or 273 days after conception either. The Gemara asks: If this was indeed the concern of the early generations of pious men, why would they engage in intercourse only on a Wednesday, and nothing more? After all, if they engaged in intercourse on a Thursday, Friday, or Shabbat, they would likewise avoid any desecration of Shabbat. The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita means that the early generations of pious men would engage in intercourse each week only from Wednesday onward.

Mar Zutra said: What is the reasoning of the early generations of pious men, who state that a woman does not give birth before 271 days have passed from the time of insemination? As it is written with regard to Boaz and Ruth: “And he went in unto her, and the Lord gave her conception [herayon]” (Ruth 4:13). The letters that constitute the word herayon are 271 in numerical value.

Mar Zutra says: Even according to the one who said, e.g., Shmuel and the early generations of pious men, that a woman who gives birth at nine months does not give birth after an incomplete number of months, i.e., she carries for a full nine months, nevertheless, a woman who gives birth at seven months can give birth after an incomplete number of months. As it is stated with regard to the birth of Samuel: “And it came to pass, when the seasons of the days had come, that Hannah conceived, and bore a son” (I Samuel 1:20). The minimal number of “seasons” is two, and as each season of the year is three months, this amounts to six months. And the minimal number of “days” is two. If so, Samuel was born in the seventh month of Hannah’s pregnancy.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: Labor pains do not occur more than two weeks before birth. Shmuel said: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon? As it is written with regard to a woman who gives birth to a female: “And she shall be impure two weeks, as in her menstruation” (Leviticus 12:5). The verse indicates that she is impure as in her menstruation but not as in her ziva. By inference, one may conclude that her ziva is pure, i.e., if she emits blood accompanied by labor pains she is not rendered a zava. And for how long is this the case? For two weeks.

With regard to the halakha that blood emitted due to labor pains does not impart impurity of ziva, the Sages taught: There is a scenario in which a woman experiences labor pains accompanied by emissions of blood for twenty-five days before birth, and the impurity of greater ziva is not included in them. How so? She emits blood for two days not at the time of her menstruation, i.e., on the tenth and eleventh days of ziva, and then for the seven days of menstruation, and then for the first two days of ziva that come after the days of menstruation. And this period is followed by fourteen days during which the impending birth of a child renders pure the blood she sees.

The baraita continues: And it is impossible for a woman to experience labor pains accompanied by emissions of blood for twenty-six days without a child, such that she will not be a woman who gives birth as a zava. Since a span of twenty-six days includes at least five days of ziva, there will inevitably be three consecutive days of ziva during which she experienced bleeding, therefore rendering her a greater zava.

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Is the baraita really dealing with a case without a child, i.e., where she is not even pregnant? If there is no child, then experiencing bleeding on three consecutive days after the days of menstruation is also sufficient to render her a greater zava. Rav Sheshet said one should say the baraita as follows: Twenty-six days in a case where there is a child, i.e., where she is pregnant. Rava said to Rav Sheshet: But the baraita explicitly teaches: Without a child.

Rather, Rava said that this is what the baraita is saying: It is impossible for a woman to experience labor pains accompanied by emissions of blood for twenty-six days in a case where there is a child, such that she will not be a woman who gives birth as a zava. And in a case where there is no child born but there is a non-viable newborn, with three consecutive days of emissions she also becomes a zava. What is the reason? The halakha that blood emitted due to labor pains does not render a woman a zava does not apply to non-viable newborns.

MISHNA: A woman who experiences labor pains within eighty days of giving birth to a female, e.g., she conceived during the sixty-six days of purity, or she initially conceived twins and she gave birth to a female and the birth of the second fetus was delayed, all blood that she sees is ritually pure, as she is currently within her days of purity. And this remains the halakha until the child emerges from the womb, at which point she is rendered impure as a woman who gives birth. And Rabbi Eliezer deems ritually impure the blood that occurs due to these labor pains.

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: And what, if in an instance where the verse was stringent with regard to blood emitted while resting, namely if a pregnant woman emits blood after her days of purity without any labor pains she is rendered impure, the verse was lenient with regard to blood that accompanies the labor pains; then in an instance where the verse was lenient with regard to blood emitted while resting, i.e., during a woman’s days of purity, is it not right that we will be lenient with regard to blood that accompanies the labor pains?

Rabbi Eliezer said to them: When deriving a halakha by means of an a fortiori inference, there is a principle that it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. In other words, the status of blood emitted due to labor pains during her days of purity should not be more lenient than that of blood emitted due to labor pains after her days of purity. Rabbi Eliezer elaborates: Concerning what type of impurity was the verse lenient with regard to a woman who experiences an emission of blood due to labor pains? Concerning the impurity of ziva. But she may still be rendered ritually impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. So too, if a woman experiences emissions of blood due to labor pains during her days of purity, she is rendered a menstruating woman.

GEMARA: With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis concerning a woman who emits blood due to labor pains during her days of purity, the Sages taught a baraita that addresses a verse discussing a woman who gives birth to a female: “And sixty-six days she shall observe the blood of purity” (Leviticus 12:5). The term “She shall observe” serves to include a woman who experiences labor pains within eighty days of giving birth to a female, teaching that all blood that she sees is ritually pure. And this remains the case until the child emerges from the womb. And Rabbi Eliezer deems ritually impure the blood that occurs due to these labor pains.

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Eliezer: And what, if in an instance where the verse was stringent with regard to blood that is emitted while resting before the birth of the child, as such blood renders her a zava, the verse was lenient with regard to blood that is emitted while resting after the birth of the child, i.e., during her days of purity; then in an instance where the verse was lenient with regard to blood emitted due to labor pains before the birth of the child, is it not right that we will be lenient with regard to blood that is emitted due to labor pains after the birth of the child?

Rabbi Eliezer said to them: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. Rabbi Eliezer elaborates: Concerning what type of impurity was the verse lenient with regard to a woman who experiences an emission of blood due to labor pains? Concerning the impurity of ziva. But an emission of blood renders her impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman. So too, if a woman experiences emissions of blood due to labor pains during her days of purity, she is rendered a menstruating woman.

The Rabbis said to him: But we will respond to you with another version of the a fortiori inference: And what, if in an instance where the verse was stringent with regard to blood that is emitted while resting before the birth of the child the verse was lenient with regard to blood that is emitted due to labor pains that come with it, i.e., which precede the birth of the child; then in an instance where the verse was lenient with regard to blood emitted while resting, namely during a woman’s days of purity, is it not right that we will be lenient with regard to blood that accompanies the labor pains that come with it?

Rabbi Eliezer said to them: Even if you respond by citing a fortiori inferences of that type throughout the entire day, the principle remains that it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. Concerning what type of impurity was the verse lenient with regard to a woman who experiences an emission of blood due to labor pains? Concerning the impurity of ziva. But an emission of blood renders her impure with the impurity of a menstruating woman.

Rava said: With this response Rabbi Eliezer triumphed over the Rabbis: Didn’t you say that the reason why a woman is not rendered a zava on account of blood that is emitted due to labor pains before birth is because the verse states: “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 due to ziva, but not blood that comes due to her child. So too, one can say that as the verse states with regard to a woman who gives birth: “And she shall be purified from the fountain of her blood” (Leviticus 12:7), this indicates that only her blood that comes due to herself is pure from ziva, but not blood that comes due to her child.

This Gemara raises a difficulty against the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer: If so, one can say that if she emits blood due to labor pains during the days of menstruation she is a menstruating woman, but if she emits blood in the days of ziva, i.e., after the days of menstruation, she is pure. The Gemara explains that the verse states: “She shall observe the blood of purity” (Leviticus 12:5), which indicates that there is one observance for all the days of her purity, i.e., all the blood she emits due to labor pains during her days of purity is either pure or impure.

MISHNA: For all the eleven days of ziva that follow the seven days of menstruation, a woman has the presumptive status of ritual purity, as it is unusual for her to experience bleeding on these days.