Niddah

'Ulla stated: R. Johanan who had it from R. Simeon b. Jehozadak  ruled, 'If a young girl who had not yet attained the age of menstruation observed a discharge, her spittle or her midras-uncleanness in the street  after a first discharge and after a second discharge is clean,  and her stain is also clean'; but I do not know [whether the last ruling]  was his own or his Master's.  In what practical issue could this matter? — In respect of establishing the ruling  to be the view of one authority  against two authorities.  When Rabin and all the other seafarers came  they stated that the ruling was in agreement with the view of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak. R. Hilkiah b. Tobi ruled: In the case of a young girl who had not yet reached the age of menstruation  a discharge of menstrual blood, even if it continued  throughout all the seven days,  is regarded as a single observation.  [Since you say,] 'Even  if it continued'  it follows that there is no necessity to state that the law is so  where there was a break.  But is not this contrary to reason, seeing that a break would cause the discharge to be like two separate observations? — Rather read: In the case of a young girl who had not yet reached the age of menstruation,  a discharge of menstrual blood that  continued throughout all the seven days  is regarded as a single observation. R. Shimi b. Hiyya ruled: Dripping is not like an observation.  is But does not the woman in fact observe it?  — Read: It is not like a continuous discharge but like one broken up.  Does this  then imply that the continuous discharge  was one like  a river?  — Rather read: It is only like a continuous discharge. Our Rabbis taught: It is established that the daughters of Israel before reaching the age of puberty are definitely  in a condition of presumptive cleanness and the [elder] women need not examine them. When they have reached the age of puberty they are definitely  in a condition of presumptive uncleanness and [elder] women must examine them. R. Judah ruled: They must not examine them with their fingers  because they might corrupt them,  but they dab them with oil within and wipe it off from without and they are thus self examined. R. JOSE RULED: FOR A WOMAN IN PREGNANCY etc. A Tanna recited in the presence of R. Eleazar, 'R. Jose ruled: As for a woman in pregnancy and a nursing woman over whom three onahs have passed it suffices for her  [to reckon her  period of uncleanness from] the time of her [observation of the flow]'. 'You', the other remarked, 'began with two  and finished with one;  do you perchance mean: A pregnant woman who was also  a nurse,  and this  teaches us incidentally the law that [in respect of an interval of three 'onahs]  the days of a woman's pregnancy supplement those of her nursing and those of her nursing supplement those of her pregnancy? As it was taught: 'The days of her pregnancy supplement those of her nursing and the days of her nursing supplement those of her pregnancy. In what manner? If there was a break  of two 'onahs during her pregnancy and of one during her nursing, or of two during her nursing and one during her pregnancy, or of one and a half during her pregnancy and one and a half during her nursing, they are all combined into a series of three 'onahs'.  One can well understand the ruling that 'the days of her pregnancy supplement those of her nursing' since this is possible where a woman became pregnant while she was still continuing her nursing. But how is it possible that 'the days of her nursing  supplement those of her pregnancy'?  — If you wish I might reply: This is possible in the case of a dry birth.  And if you prefer I might reply: Menstrual blood is one thing and birth blood is another thing.  And if you prefer I might reply: Read the first clause only. OF WHAT DID THEY SPEAK WHEN THEY LAID DOWN THAT IT SUFFICES [FOR THEM TO RECKON] THEIR [PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME [OF THEIR DISCOVERY OF THE FLOW]'? etc. Rab stated: This  refers to all of them,  and Samuel stated: This  was learnt only in respect of a virgin  and an old woman  but for pregnant or nursing women  it suffices for them, throughout all the days of their pregnancy and throughout all the days of their nursing respectively to reckon their uncleanness from the time of their observing a flow. In the same manner R. Simeon b. Lakish stated: This  refers to all of them; while R. Johanan stated: This was learnt only in respect of a virgin and an old woman but for pregnant or nursing women it suffices throughout all the days of their pregnancy and throughout all the days of their nursing respectively to reckon their uncleanness from the time of their observing the flow. This dispute  is analogous to one between Tannas. [For it was taught]: If pregnant or nursing women were