Niddah 29

Niddah 29

לְחַלֵּק בֵּין עֵרֶךְ אִישׁ לְעֵרֶךְ אִשָּׁה.

in order to differentiate between the valuation of a man and the valuation of a woman. Therefore, it could not have been derived from that verse that a tumtum and a hermaphrodite are excluded from the halakha of valuations, were it not for the superfluous words “the” and “if.”

יָצָא מְחוּתָּךְ אוֹ מְסוֹרָס וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֲפִילּוּ הָרֹאשׁ עִמָּהֶן.

§ The mishna teaches that if the fetus emerged in pieces, or if it emerged reversed, i.e., feetfirst rather than headfirst; when most of its limbs emerge, its status is like that of a child born, with regard to the impurity of a woman after childbirth. Rabbi Elazar says: Even if the head is among the limbs that emerged, provided that the majority of the limbs did not yet emerge, the fetus is not considered born.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין הָרֹאשׁ עִמָּהֶן, אֲבָל הָרֹאשׁ עִמָּהֶן — הָרֹאשׁ פּוֹטֵר.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught in the mishna that the woman is not impure unless most of the fetus’s limbs emerged only in a case where the head is not among the limbs that emerged; but if the head is among them, the head exempts the woman’s future offspring from the obligation of primogeniture, as the fetus is considered born.

לֵימָא בְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין הָרֹאשׁ פּוֹטֵר בִּנְפָלִים.

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that these Sages disagree with regard to the opinion of Shmuel? As Shmuel said that if a woman is pregnant with twins, and the head of one of the fetuses emerges and then disappears back into the womb, this does not exempt the other fetus from the obligation of primogeniture should it be born first. Shmuel says this specifically in a case of non-viable newborns, i.e., where the fetus whose head emerged was a non-viable newborn and the one that was eventually born first is a viable offspring. But if both are viable offspring, the emergence of the head is considered birth. The suggestion is that Rabbi Elazar agrees with the opinion of Shmuel, whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees with the opinion of Shmuel and maintains that the emergence of the head is considered birth even in the case of a non-viable newborn.

בְּשָׁלֵם — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בִּמְחוּתָּךְ, דְּמָר סָבַר: בְּשָׁלֵם הוּא דְּקָחָשֵׁיב, בִּמְחוּתָּךְ לָא קָחָשֵׁיב, וּמָר סָבַר: בַּמְחוּתָּךְ נָמֵי חָשֵׁיב.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion, as it is possible that in the case of a whole non-viable newborn, everyone, i.e., Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yoḥanan, agrees that the emergence of the head is considered a birth, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel. When they disagree, it is in the case of a fetus that emerged in pieces. As one Sage, Rabbi Elazar, holds that it is specifically in the case of a whole non-viable newborn that the emergence of the head is considered birth, whereas with regard to a fetus that emerged in pieces it is not considered birth; and one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that in the case of a fetus that emerged in pieces as well, the emergence of the head is considered birth.

לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: טַעְמָא דְּיָצָא מְחוּתָּךְ אוֹ מְסוֹרָס, הָא כְּתִקְנוֹ — הָרֹאשׁ פּוֹטֵר. תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לֵית לְהוּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין הָרֹאשׁ פּוֹטֵר בִּנְפָלִים.

The Gemara cites another version of this discussion. The reason it is necessary for most of the limbs of the fetus to emerge for it to be considered born is that it emerged in pieces, or that it emerged reversed, i.e., feet first. It may be inferred from here that if it emerged in its proper manner, headfirst and whole, it is considered born, even according to Rabbi Elazar. Therefore, if the woman is pregnant with twins, the emergence of the head exempts the other twin from the obligations of primogeniture. Evidently, both Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar do not hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said that the emergence of the head of one of the twins does not exempt the other in a case of non-viable newborns.

אִיכָּא דְמַתְנֵי לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתְּתָא בְּאַפֵּי נַפְשַׁהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין הָרֹאשׁ כְּרוֹב אֵבָרִים, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: הָרֹאשׁ כְּרוֹב אֵבָרִים, וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל.

There are those who teach this halakha by itself, i.e., not in reference to the mishna: Rabbi Elazar says: The emergence of the head of a non-viable newborn is not considered like the emergence of most of the limbs; and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The emergence of the head of a non-viable newborn is considered like the emergence of most of the limbs. And they disagree with regard to the opinion of Shmuel; Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with Shmuel’s opinion, whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan does not accept the opinion of Shmuel.

תְּנַן: יָצָא מְחוּתָּךְ אוֹ מְסוֹרָס, מִשֶּׁיֵּצֵא רוּבּוֹ — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיָלוּד. מִדְּקָאָמַר ״מְסוֹרָס״, מִכְּלָל דִּמְחוּתָּךְ כְּתִקְנוֹ, וְקָאָמַר מִשֶּׁיֵּצֵא רוּבּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּיָלוּד — קַשְׁיָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: We learned in the mishna that if the fetus emerged in pieces or if it emerged reversed, when most of its limbs emerge, its status is like that of a child born. The Gemara infers: From the fact that the mishna states: Or reversed, by inference in the case of a fetus that emerged in pieces it emerged in its proper manner, i.e., the head first and then the body, and nevertheless the mishna states that it is only when most of its limbs emerge that its status is like that of a child born. This is difficult for the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as he maintains that once the head emerges, the fetus is considered born.

אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֵימָא: יָצָא מְחוּתָּךְ וּמְסוֹרָס.

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said to you: Say that the mishna is referring to a case where the fetus emerged in pieces and reversed, whereas if it emerged with its head first, it is considered born even if most of its limbs did not emerge yet.

וְהָא ״אוֹ״ קָתָנֵי! הָכִי קָאָמַר: יָצָא מְחוּתָּךְ אוֹ שָׁלֵם, וְזֶה וָזֶה מְסוֹרָס — מִשֶּׁיֵּצֵא רוּבּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּיָלוּד.

The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the mishna teach that the fetus emerged in pieces or reversed? If so, it cannot be explained as referring to a case where the fetus emerged both in pieces and reversed. The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: If the fetus emerged in pieces or whole, and in both this case and that case it emerged reversed, then when most of its limbs emerge, its status is like that of a child born.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּתַנָּאֵי, יָצָא מְחוּתָּךְ אוֹ מְסוֹרָס — מִשֶּׁיֵּצֵא רוּבּוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיָלוּד. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁיֵּצֵא כְּתִקְנוֹ. מַאי קָאָמַר?

Rav Pappa says: This dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yoḥanan is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is stated in a baraita: If the fetus emerged in pieces or reversed, when most of its limbs emerge its status is like that of a child born. Rabbi Yosei says: Its status is like that of a child born when it emerges in its proper manner. The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Yosei saying? His statement apparently indicates that if a fetus emerges with its feet first, then even after most of its limbs emerge it is not considered born.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: יָצָא מְחוּתָּךְ וּמְסוֹרָס — מִשֶּׁיֵּצֵא רוּבּוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיָלוּד, הָא כְּתִקְנוֹ — הָרֹאשׁ פּוֹטֵר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁיֵּצֵא רוּבּוֹ כְּתִקְנוֹ.

Rav Pappa says that this is what the baraita is saying: If the fetus emerged in pieces or reversed, when most of its limbs emerge its status is like that of a child born; but by inference, if the fetus emerged in its proper manner, then the emergence of the head exempts its twin, should it eventually be born first, from the obligations of primogeniture. And Rabbi Yosei says: The status of a fetus that emerged in pieces is like that of a child born when most of its limbs emerge, provided that it emerged in its proper manner, i.e., both requirements are necessary. The suggestion is that the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan is in accordance with the ruling of the first tanna, that even if a fetus emerges in pieces, once its head emerges it is considered born; whereas the opinion of Rabbi Elazar follows the ruling of Rabbi Yosei that even if such a fetus emerges headfirst, it is not considered born.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב זְבִיד: מִכְּלָל דְּבִמְסוֹרָס, רוּבּוֹ נָמֵי לֹא פּוֹטֵר? הָא קַיְימָא לַן דְּרוּבּוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ!

Rav Zevid objects to Rav Pappa’s interpretation of the baraita: Since Rabbi Yosei issued his statement that both requirements are necessary, i.e., a majority of limbs and emergence in the proper manner, with regard to the two cases mentioned by the first tanna, by inference in the other case, where the fetus emerged reversed, even when most of its limbs emerge it does not exempt its twin from the obligations of primogeniture. But this is difficult, as we maintain that the majority of an item is considered like all of it. Accordingly, when most of the fetus’s limbs emerge it should be considered born even if it came out feetfirst.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב זְבִיד, הָכִי קָאָמַר: יָצָא מְחוּתָּךְ וּמְסוֹרָס — מִשֶּׁיֵּצֵא רוּבּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּיָלוּד, הָא כְּתִקְנוֹ — הָרֹאשׁ פּוֹטֵר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁיֵּצֵא כְּתִקְנוֹ לְחַיִּים.

Rather, Rav Zevid says that this is what the baraita is saying: If the fetus emerged in pieces and reversed, when most of its limbs emerge its status is like that of a child born; but by inference, if the fetus emerged in its proper manner then the emergence of the head exempts its twin from the obligations of primogeniture, even if it was born in pieces. Rabbi Yosei says: The fetus is considered born once its head emerges only in a case when it emerges in its proper manner alive; if it emerges in pieces, the fetus is considered born only when most of its limbs emerge.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: יָצָא מְחוּתָּךְ (אוֹ) מְסוֹרָס — מִשֶּׁיֵּצֵא רוּבּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה כְּיָלוּד, הָא כְּתִקְנוֹ — הָרֹאשׁ פּוֹטֵר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁיֵּצֵא כְּתִקְנוֹ לְחַיִּים.

This explanation is also taught explicitly in another baraita: If the fetus emerged in pieces and reversed, then when most of its limbs emerge its status is like that of a child born; but if the fetus emerged in its proper manner, the emergence of the head exempts its twin. Rabbi Yosei says: The fetus is considered born once its head emerges only in a case where it emerges in its proper manner alive.

וְאֵיזֶהוּ כְּתִקְנוֹ לְחַיִּים? מִשֶּׁיֵּצֵא רוֹב רֹאשׁוֹ. וְאֵיזֶהוּ רוֹב רֹאשׁוֹ? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מִשֶּׁיֵּצְאוּ צְדָעָיו. אַבָּא חָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: (מִשֶּׁיֵּצֵא) [מִשֶּׁתֵּצֵא] פַּדַּחְתּוֹ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: מִשֶּׁיֵּרָאוּ קַרְנֵי רֹאשׁוֹ.

And what is the exact stage when a fetus that emerged in its proper manner alive is considered born? When most of its head emerges. And what is the stage when most of its head emerges? Rabbi Yosei says: When its temples emerge. Abba Ḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: When its forehead emerges. And some say: When the corners of its head, i.e., the projection of the head above the neck, are visible.

מַתְנִי’ הַמַּפֶּלֶת וְאֵין יָדוּעַ מַהוּ — תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה. אֵין יָדוּעַ אִם וָלָד הָיָה אִם לָאו — תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה וּלְנִדָּה.

MISHNA: In the case of a woman who discharges and it is not known what is the fetus’s sex, she shall observe the strictures of a woman who gave birth both to a male and to a female. She is impure for fourteen days, like a woman who gave birth to a female, and any blood the woman sees only until forty days after birth, not eighty days thereafter, is pure, like a woman who gave birth to a male. If it is unknown whether it was a male or female offspring or whether it was not an offspring at all, she shall observe the period of impurity for a woman who gave birth to a male and for a woman who gave birth to a female; and for any blood that she sees, she observes the halakhot of a menstruating woman. Since it is possible that what she discharged was not an offspring at all, any blood she sees might be due to menstruation, not childbirth.

גְּמָ’ אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: עָבְרָה נָהָר וְהִפִּילָה — מְבִיאָה קׇרְבָּן וְנֶאֱכָל, הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב נָשִׁים, וְרוֹב נָשִׁים וָלָד מְעַלְּיָא יָלְדָן.

GEMARA: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: With regard to a pregnant woman who passed across a river and she discharged her fetus into the river, and she does not know whether the fetus was fully formed, she brings the offering of a woman after childbirth, which is a burnt offering and a sin offering. And the sin offering, which is a bird, is eaten after the nape of its neck has been pinched, in the manner of a regular bird sin offering. This is the halakha despite the uncertainty that this fetus might not have been fully formed, in which case the woman would not be obligated to bring this offering, and a bird that is not an offering may not be eaten if its nape was pinched. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains the reasoning behind this ruling: One must follow the majority of pregnant women, and most pregnant women give birth to full-fledged offspring.

תְּנַן: אֵין יָדוּעַ אִם וָלָד הָיָה, תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה וּלְנִדָּה. אַמַּאי תֵּשֵׁב לְנִדָּה? לֵימָא: הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב נָשִׁים, וְרוֹב נָשִׁים וָלָד מְעַלְּיָא יָלְדָן.

The Gemara analyzes this claim. We learned in the mishna: If it is unknown whether what the woman discharged was a male or female offspring or whether it was not an offspring at all, she shall observe the period of impurity for a woman who gave birth to a male and for a woman who gave birth to a female; and for any blood that she sees, she observes the halakhot of a menstruating woman. The Gemara asks: According to the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, why must the woman observe the halakhot of a menstruating woman? Let us say that one must follow the majority of women, and the majority of women give birth to full-fledged offspring. If so, she should observe a period of purity, during which any blood she sees is pure, after her period of impurity, like all women after childbirth.

מַתְנִיתִין בְּשֶׁלֹּא הוּחְזְקָה עוּבָּרָה, וְכִי קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי — כְּשֶׁהוּחְזְקָה עוּבָּרָה.

The Gemara answers: The halakha in the mishna is referring to a case where the woman had not been presumed to be pregnant prior to her miscarriage; and when Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that a woman who discharges is presumed to have discharged an offspring, he was speaking of a case where the woman had been presumed to be pregnant prior to her miscarriage.

תָּא שְׁמַע: בְּהֵמָה שֶׁיָּצְאָה מְלֵאָה, וּבָאָה רֵיקָנִית — הַבָּא אַחֲרָיו בְּכוֹר מִסָּפֵק.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a difficulty with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi from a baraita: There is the case of a kosher animal that had not yet given birth, which went to the pasture full, i.e., pregnant, and came back the same day empty, i.e., with no live offspring.It clearly discharged, but it is unknown whether or not it discharged an offspring, which would exempt the animal’s subsequent offspring from the status of a firstborn. In this case, the offspring that comes after it is a firstborn of uncertain status.

וְאַמַּאי? הַלֵּךְ אַחַר רוֹב בְּהֵמוֹת, וְרוֹב בְּהֵמוֹת וָלָד מְעַלְּיָא יָלְדָן, וְהַאי פָּשׁוּט הוּא!

The Gemara asks: But why is this the halakha? According to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, one should follow the reality among the majority of animals, and the majority of animals give birth to full-fledged offspring. And if so, this subsequent offspring of the animal is a regular offspring, i.e., it is definitely not a firstborn.

אָמַר רָבִינָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: רוֹב בְּהֵמוֹת יוֹלְדוֹת דָּבָר הַפּוֹטֵר מִבְּכוֹרָה, וּמִעוּטָן יוֹלְדוֹת דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ פּוֹטֵר מִבְּכוֹרָה, וְכׇל הַיּוֹלְדוֹת מְטַנְּפוֹת, וְזוֹ הוֹאִיל וְלֹא טִנְּפָה — אִתְּרַע לֵהּ רוּבָּא.

Ravina says in response: In this case, the halakha does not follow the majority of animals, because it can be said that the majority of animals give birth to an item that exempts the animal’s subsequent offspring from firstborn status, but a minority of animals give birth to an item that does not exempt the animal’s subsequent offspring from firstborn status, i.e., an item that is not a full-fledged offspring. And an additional factor is that all animals that give birth to full-fledged offspring discharge turbid liquids one day before giving birth, and since this animal did not discharge turbid liquids before going to the pasture, the effect of the majority is undermined. Consequently, the status of the animal’s birth is uncertain, and for this reason its subsequent offspring is considered a firstborn of uncertain status.

אִי כׇּל הַיּוֹלְדוֹת מְטַנְּפוֹת, הָא מִדְּלָא מְטַנְּפָה בְּכוֹר מְעַלְּיָא הוּא! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: רוֹב יוֹלְדוֹת מְטַנְּפוֹת, וְזוֹ הוֹאִיל וְלֹא טִנְּפָה — אִתְּרַע לֵהּ רוּבָּא.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If all animals that give birth to full-fledged offspring discharge turbid liquids before giving birth, then it should be concluded from the fact that this animal did not discharge turbid liquids that it did not discharge a full-fledged offspring, and therefore the animal’s subsequent offspring is a proper firstborn, not a firstborn of uncertain status. Rather, one should say that Ravina meant the following: The majority of animals that give birth discharge turbid liquids beforehand, and therefore, since this animal did not discharge turbid liquids, the effect of the majority is undermined.

כִּי אֲתָא רַבִּין אָמַר: מֵתִיב רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא טוֹעָה, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא מַאי תְּיוּבְתָּא. מַאי הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא:

§ When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi from the halakha of a forgetful woman; but I do not know what the objection is. The Gemara asks: This halakha of a forgetful woman, which forms the basis of the objection, what is it? The Gemara explains: As it is taught in a baraita:

אִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּצְתָה מְלֵאָה וּבָאָה רֵיקָנִית, וְהֵבִיאָה לְפָנֵינוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה שָׁבוּעִין טְהוֹרִין, וַעֲשָׂרָה שְׁבוּעוֹת אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר.

A woman left home for an extended period of time while she was full, i.e., pregnant, and came back when she was empty, as she discharged the fetus, but it is unknown exactly when and what she discharged; and she spent three weeks in our presence during which she was pure, i.e., she did not experience any bleeding, and for the following ten weeks she alternated between one impure week, in which she experienced bleeding every day, and one pure week, in which she did not experience bleeding at all.

מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת לְאוֹר שְׁלֹשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ, וּמַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ תִּשְׁעִים וְחָמֵשׁ טְבִילוֹת, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: שְׁלֹשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: דַּיָּהּ לַטְּבִילָה שֶׁתְּהֵא בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה.

In such a case, the woman may engage in intercourse with her husband at the end of the fifth week following her return, on the eve of the thirty-fifth day, after which she is again prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her husband. And we require her to immerse in a ritual bath a total of ninety-five immersions. This is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say that she is required to immerse thirty-five times. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: She is required to immerse only once, as it is sufficient for the immersion to be at the end of the period when she is required to immerse every day. The entire baraita will be explained below.

בִּשְׁלָמָא שָׁבוּעַ רִאשׁוֹן לֹא מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת, אֵימַר: יוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר הִיא; שָׁבוּעַ שֵׁנִי, אֵימַר: יוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה הִיא;

The Gemara explains the objection from the baraita to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Granted in the first week following her arrival the woman may not engage in intercourse with her husband, despite the fact that she did not experience bleeding during that week, as one can say that perhaps she is a woman who gave birth to a male just before her arrival, which would mean that the first week is her seven-day period of impurity. Likewise, it is clear that the woman may not engage in intercourse with her husband during the second week after her arrival, as one can say that she is a woman who gave birth to a female, and consequently her period of impurity is two weeks long.

שָׁבוּעַ שְׁלִישִׁי, אֵימַר: יוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה בְּזוֹב הִיא;

It is also clear why she may not engage in intercourse during the third week, as one can say that perhaps she is a woman who gave birth to a female as a zava, i.e., a woman who experienced a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period for three days without the pain of labor, and therefore assumed the status of a zava before giving birth. If so, she must count seven clean days after her two-week period of impurity, and subsequently immerse.

אֶלָּא שָׁבוּעַ רְבִיעִי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּקָא חָזְיָא דָּם — תְּשַׁמֵּשׁ, דְּהָא דָּם טָהוֹר הוּא. לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא?

But in the fourth week, even though the woman sees blood during that period, let her engage in intercourse with her husband, as it is pure blood. At this stage the woman’s period of purity is certainly underway. Why does the baraita state that she may not engage in intercourse with her husband in this week? Is it not due to the concern that she might have discharged an item that was not a full-fledged offspring? Evidently, although most pregnant women give birth to full-fledged offspring, we do not follow the majority, which contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

אֶלָּא מַאי ״לָא יָדַעְנָא מַאי תְּיוּבְתָּא״? אֵימַר: הִרְחִיקָה לֵידָתָהּ.

The Gemara asks: Rather, as this is apparently a valid objection, what is the reason that Ravin said: I do not know what the objection to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is? The Gemara explains: Perhaps it is in fact assumed that the woman gave birth to a full-fledged offspring, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and the reason she is not considered pure in the fourth week after her arrival is that one can say that her birth was distant, i.e., she gave birth a long time before her arrival, and therefore her period of purity had already ended before the fourth week.

הָךְ שְׁבוּעַ חֲמִישִׁי דְּטָהוֹר הוּא, תְּשַׁמֵּשׁ!

§ The Gemara further analyzes the above baraita: During this fifth week, when the woman is pure, as she did not experience any bleeding, let her engage in intercourse with her husband. Why is she permitted to do so only on the eve of the thirty-fifth day, at the end of the fifth week?

הָךְ שָׁבוּעַ רְבִיעִי, כֹּל יוֹמָא וְיוֹמָא מַסְפְּקִינַן בְּסוֹף לֵידָה וּבִתְחִלַּת נִדָּה, וְעֶשְׂרִין וּתְמָנְיָא גּוּפֵיהּ אֵימַר תְּחִלַּת נִדָּה הִיא, וּבָעֲיָא לְמֵיתַב שִׁבְעָה לְנִדָּתָהּ.

The Gemara answers: During this fourth week, when she experiences bleeding every day, we are uncertain with regard to each and every day as to whether it is the end of the woman’s period of purity as a woman after childbirth, and that it is therefore the beginning of the seven-day period that she must observe as a menstruating woman. And with regard to the twenty-eighth day itself, the last day of the fourth week, one can also say that it is after the last day of her period of purity and the beginning of her period as a menstruating woman, and therefore she is required to observe seven days for her menstruation, which end on the thirty-fourth day after her arrival. Consequently, the woman may engage in intercourse with her husband only on the eve of the thirty-fifth day.

בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְחַד תְּשַׁמֵּשׁ!

The Gemara further inquires: As explained above, the reason it is prohibited for the woman to engage in intercourse during the third week is that she might have given birth just before arriving and had been a zava at the time, and therefore after observing the two weeks of impurity of a woman after childbirth, she must observe an additional seven days of impurity as a zava. A zava may undergo her purification process on the seventh day of her impurity, following which she is permitted to engage in intercourse. Accordingly, let the woman engage in intercourse on the twenty-first day after her arrival.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: ״אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן״, שֶׁמָּא תָּבֹא לִידֵי סָפֵק. לְאוּרְתָּא תְּשַׁמֵּשׁ? כְּשֶׁרָאֲתָה בָּעֶרֶב.

The Gemara answers: The halakha in this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that it is prohibited for a woman to do so, i.e., to engage in intercourse on the seventh day of her ziva after immersing in a ritual bath, lest she come to a case of uncertainty. If she engages in intercourse on that seventh day after immersion, and subsequently experiences bleeding on that same day, it retroactively nullifies her entire seven clean days, and it turns out that she engaged in intercourse while she was impure. The Gemara continues to ask: Even so, let her engage in intercourse that night, after having completed seven clean days. The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case when the woman saw blood in the evening, i.e., her fourth week of experiencing bleeding started in the nighttime.

וּמַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ תִּשְׁעִים וְחָמֵשׁ טְבִילוֹת. שָׁבוּעַ קַמָּא מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ בְּלֵילָוָתָא, אֵימַר יוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר הִיא.

§ The Gemara analyzes the statement of Beit Shammai: And we require the woman to immerse in a ritual bath for a total of ninety-five immersions. The Gemara explains: During the first week she is required to immerse at night, every night of the week. The reason is that as the date of her childbirth and the sex of the offspring are unknown, one can say that she is a woman who gave birth to a male. If so, the seven days of impurity might have ended on any night of the first week, and therefore she must immerse in a ritual bath on each night.

שָׁבוּעַ שֵׁנִי, מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ בְּלֵילָוָתָא, אֵימַר: יוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה הִיא. (בִּימָמָא) [בִּימָמֵי], אֵימַר: יוֹלֶדֶת זָכָר בְּזוֹב הִיא.

During the second week, she is required to immerse at night, every night, as one can say that she is a woman who gave birth to a female, and therefore it is possible that her fourteen-day period of impurity ended on any of the nights of the second week. She must also immerse every day of the second week in the daytime, as one can say that she is a woman who gave birth to a male as a zava. If so, it is possible that her seven-day period of impurity as a woman after childbirth ended on any given day during the first week, after which she must start to count seven clean days as a zava. These seven days necessarily culminate during the second week, and the halakha is that a woman must immerse in a ritual bath on the morning when her seven clean days of ziva conclude.

שָׁבוּעַ שְׁלִישִׁי מַטְבִּילִין לַהּ (בִּימָמָא) [בִּימָמֵי], אֵימַר: יוֹלֶדֶת נְקֵבָה בְּזוֹב הִיא.

During the third week, she is required to immerse every day in the daytime, as one can say that she is a woman who gave birth to a female as a zava, and consequently her fourteen-day period of impurity as a woman after childbirth ended during the second week. Therefore, the woman’s seven clean days as a zava might end on any day of the third week, and she is obligated to immerse on that morning.

בְּלֵילָוָתָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּאָמְרִי: טְבוּלַת יוֹם אָרוֹךְ בָּעֵי טְבִילָה.

She is also required to immerse on every night of the third week, according to Beit Shammai. Beit Shammai conform to their line of reasoning, as they say in a mishna (71b) that a woman who finished her period of purity after childbirth, referred to as a woman who immersed that long day and is waiting for her purification process to be completed, requires immersion at the end of this period. The woman must therefore immerse on every night of the third week, in case that night is the end of her period of purity, for a total of thirty-five immersions by the end of the week. She must continue to immerse every night until her period of purity is certainly over, no matter when she gave birth, i.e., until the eightieth day since her arrival.