Niddah

MISHNAH. A WOMAN IN PROTRACTED LABOUR IS REGARDED AS A MENSTRUANT. IF HAVING BEEN IN LABOUR  FOR THREE DAYS OF THE ELEVEN DAYS,  SHE WAS RELIEVED FROM HER PAINS FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS AND THEN GAVE BIRTH, SHE IS REGARDED AS HAVING GIVEN BIRTH IN A ZIBAH;  SO R. ELIEZER. R. JOSHUA RULED: THE RELIEF FROM PAIN  MUST HAVE CONTINUED FOR A NIGHT AND A DAY,  AS THE NIGHT AND THE DAY OF THE SABBATH.  THE RELIEF [SPOKEN OF IS ONE] FROM PAIN, NOT FROM BLEEDING.  HOW LONG MAY PROTRACTED LABOUR CONTINUE?  R. MEIR RULED: 'EVEN FORTY OR FIFTY DAYS.  R. JUDAH RULED: HER [NINTH] MONTH SUFFICES FOR HER.  R. JOSE AND R. SIMEON RULED: PROTRACTED LABOUR CANNOT CONTINUE  FOR MORE THAN TWO WEEKS. GEMARA. Is then  every woman IN PROTRACTED LABOUR REGARDED AS A MENSTRUANT?  — Rab replied: She  is deemed to be a menstruant for one day.  Samuel, however, ruled: The possibility must be taken into consideration  that she might be relieved from her pain,  while R. Isaac ruled: A discharge on the part of a woman in labour  is of no consequence.  But was it not stated, A WOMAN IN PROTRACTED LABOUR IS REGARDED AS A MENSTRUANT? — Raba replied: During the days of her menstruation  SHE  IS DEEMED TO BE A MENSTRUANT,  but during the days of zibah  she is clean. And so it was also taught: If a woman is in protracted labour during the days of her menstruation  she is deemed to be a menstruant,  but if this occurred during the days of her zibah  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,  or if she was relieved from pains and then was again in labour and then was again relieved from pain,  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 precede  birth the woman is not regarded as having given birth in zibah, but if release from pain immediately precedes  birth the woman  must be regarded as having given birth in zibah.  Hananiah the son of R. Joshua's brother ruled: Provided her pains of labour were experienced  on her third day.  even though she had relief during the rest of that day, she  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 this  deduced? — Our  Rabbis taught: Her blood  refers to blood that is normally discharged,  but not to such as is due to childbirth.  You say. '[Not to such as is] due to childbirth'; is it not possible that only that blood is excluded  which is due to an accident?  As it was said, And if a woman have an issue of her blood,  a discharge that is due to an accident is included;  to what then could one apply the limitation of 'her blood'?  Obviously to this: "Her blood" refers to blood that is normally discharged but not to such as is due to childbirth'. But  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,  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 accident  than this.  If so,  why should it not be said in the case of a menstruant also: Her issue  refers to an issue that is normally discharged but not to such as is due to childbirth?  You say, '[not to such as is due to] childbirth'; is it not possible that only that blood is excluded  which is due to an accident?  As it was said, And if a woman have an issue,  a discharge that is due to an accident is included;  to what then could one apply the limitation of 'her issue'?  Obviously to this: 'Her issue' refers to an issue that is normally discharged but not to such as is due to childbirth!  — Resh Lakish answered: Scripture said, She shall continue  which implies:  You have another continuation which is of the same nature as this one;  and which is it?  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,  [implying] but not 'as in her zibah', from which it may be inferred that her zibah is clean; and which is it?  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,  what need was there for the expression of 'her blood'?  — If not for the expression 'her blood' it might have been presumed that the deduction 'as in her menstration'  and not 'as in her zibah' implies that the discharge is clean even where the woman was relieved from pain,  hence we were informed  [that the discharge is clean only where it is due to childbirth]. Shila b. Abina gave a practical decision in agreement with the view of Rab.  When Rab's soul was about to depart to its eternal rest he  said to R. Assi, 'Go and restrain him,  and if he does not listen to you try to convince him'.  The other thought that he was told, 'put him under the ban'.  After Rab's soul came to its eternal rest he  said to him,  'Retract, for Rab has retracted'. 'If', the other retorted, 'he had retracted he would have told me so'.  As he  did not listen to him' the latter put him under the ban. 'Is not the Master', the other  asked him, 'afraid of the fire?'  'I', the former replied, 'am Issi b. Judah  who is Issi b. Gur-aryeh  who is Issi b. Gamaliel who is Issi b. Mahalalel, a brazen mortar  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,  and his soul departed to its eternal rest.