Nazir

Is this indeed R. Jose's opinion?  Has it not been taught: R. Jose said that a sufferer from gonorrhoea who has observed unclean issue on two occasions, and on whose behalf [the paschal lamb] has been slaughtered and [its blood] sprinkled 'on the seventh day [of his impurity], and Similarly a woman, on the wait' for gonorrhoeic issue on whose behalf [the paschal lamb] has been slaughtered and [its blood] sprinkled — if they afterwards observe an unclean issue, then even though they render unclean couch and seat  retrospectively, they are not obliged to offer the second passover?  — [The uncleanness] is retrospective only by enactment of the Rabbis. This is indeed evident, for if it were scriptural, on what grounds would they be exempt from the second passover?  [No!]  In point of fact it would be possible for the uncleanness [to be retrospective] in biblical law also, the concealed impurity  of gonorrhoea not being reckoned a ban [to the offering of the passover]. R. Oshaya. too, is of the opinion that the retrospective incidence is rabbinic in origin,  for it has been taught:  R. Oshaia said that one who observes a gonorrhoeic issue on his seventh day, renders void the preceding [seven days]. R. Johanan said to him: Only that day itself becomes void. But consider! [What is R. Johanan saying?] If it renders void at all, it should render all [seven days] void, otherwise it should not render void even the same day? — Read therefore: [R. Johanan said that] it does not even render void the same day,