Study Niddah folio 37B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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
And if God 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 3 sightings on one day, as she is through sightings on 3 consecutive days. But with regard to a zav, who is rendered im
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 7 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 7 days; as in the days of her menstrual
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 bi
Abaye continues: What, is it not correct that the baraita means she must observe 7 days that are clean from the impurity of birth? Evidently, her days of impurity do not count toward her count of 7 clean days. The Talmud rejects this suggestion: No, the baraita means that these days must be clean