Niddah

Said Abaye: Whence do I derive this?  From what was taught: Her sickness shall she be unclean,  includes the man who had intercourse with her; 'her sickness shall she be unclean' includes the nights;  'her sickness shall she be unclean' includes a woman who gave birth in zibah who is required to continue in her uncleanness until seven clean days have passed. Now does not this mean: Clean from the uncleanness of birth?  — No, clean from that of blood. Abaye further stated, Whence do I derive this?  From what was taught: As are the days of her menstruation so are the days of her bearing. As the days of her menstruation are not suitable [for counting as the days] after her zibah  and they cannot be included in the counting of the prescribed seven days, so also the days following her bearing which  are not suitable [for counting as the days] after her zibah may not  be included in the counting of the seven prescribed days. And Raba? — This is in agreement with  R. Eliezer who ruled: It  also renders void all previous counting.  But may an inference be drawn from the impossible  for the possible?  R. Ahadboy b. Ammi replied: This is the view of R. Eliezer who holds that the possible may be inferred from the impossible.  R. Shesheth, however, replied: Scripture has perforce compared them  to one another. There are some who say: R. Ahadboy b. Ammi citing R. Shesheth replied. This represents the view of R. Eliezer who holds that the possible may be deduced from the impossible; but R. Papa replied: Scripture has perforce compared them to one another. IF HAVING BEEN IN LABOUR FOR THREE DAYS etc. The question was raised: What is the ruling where she was relieved from both?  — R. Hisda replied: She is unclean.  R. Hanina replied: She is clean.  R. Hanina explained: This may be compared to a king who, when going on a tour, is preceded  by his troops and it is known that they are the king's troops.  But R. Hisda, said: [Immediately before his arrival] he would require even more troops. We learnt: 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. The reason then  is because [she had relief] FROM PAIN and NOT FROM BLEEDING, but if she had relief from both  she is clean. Does not this present an objection against R. Hisda? — R. Hisda can answer you: There was no need to state that, if she had relief from both, she is unclean, since [metaphorically] the troops completely disappeared; but even where she had relief from pain and not from bleeding where it might have been presumed that as she had not ceased to bleed she has not ceased to labour either and that it was merely stupor that seized her. Hence we were informed [that even in this case she is unclean]. We learnt: 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 ZIBAH. Now, how are we to imagine the circumstances? If it be suggested: As it was stated,  [the objection would arise:] What need was there to mention THREE seeing that it suffices  if the labour lasted two days and the relief  one day? Consequently it must be this that was meant: IF HAVING BEEN IN LABOUR FOR THREE DAYS she was relieved from both,  or if having been in labour for two days, SHE WAS RELIEVED FROM HER PAINS FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS, SHE IS REGARDED AS HAVING GIVEN BIRTH IN ZIBAH, and this presents, does it not, an objection against R. Hanina? — R. Hanina can answer you: No; the circumstances may in fact be as stated,  but it is this that we were informed, that although the labour continued  [for a part only] of the third day and she was relieved from her pains for twenty-four hours  she is nevertheless unclean, contrary to the view  of R. Hanina. HOW LONG MAY PROTRACTED LABOUR CONTINUE? R. MEIR RULED etc. Now since protracted labour may continue for FIFTY DAYS is there any necessity to mention FORTY? — R. Hisda replied: This is no difficulty, the one  referring to an ailing woman and the other  to a woman in good health. R. Levi ruled: [The birth of] a child is a cause of the cleanness of those days only in which a woman may normally become a zabah,  but Rab ruled: Even in the days that are suitable for the counting prescribed for a zabah.  Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: And according to Rab's view