Niddah

'R. Judah son of R. Johanan b. Zakkai ruled: Her husband may enter the Temple and burn incense'. But why should not a prohibition be imposed  on the ground that the man came in contact with a menstruant during the twenty-four hours of her retrospective uncleanness? — He  holds the same view as Shammai who ruled: For all women it suffices to reckon their period of uncleanness from the time of their discovering the flow.  But should not a prohibition be imposed  on the ground that the man has experienced an emission of semen? — This is a case where his intercourse was not consummated. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, AGREE WITH R. AKIBA THAT ONE WHO OBSERVED A BLOODSTAIN. Rab explained: [She conveys UNCLEANNESS] retrospectively and the ruling is that of R. Meir.  Samuel, however, explained: [She conveys UNCLEANNESS] from now  onwards and the ruling is that of the Rabbis. 'From now onwards'! Would not this  be obvious? — It might have been presumed that, since retrospective uncleanness for a period of twenty-four hours is only a Rabbinical measure and the uncleanness of bloodstains at all times  is also only a Rabbinical measure, as during the twenty-four hours' period a woman does not convey uncleanness to the man who had intercourse with her so also in the case of a stain  does she not convey uncleanness to the man who had intercourse with her, hence we were informed [that she does convey uncleanness to the man]. Might it not, however, be suggested that the law is so indeed?  — [No, since] in the former case there is no slaughtered ox in your presence  but here there is a slaughtered ox in your presence.  Resh Lakish also explained in the same way  [that uncleanness is conveyed] retrospectively and that the ruling is that of R. Meir. R. Johanan explained: [The uncleanness is conveyed] from now onwards and the ruling is that of the Rabbis. MISHNAH. ALL WOMEN ARE IN THE CONDITION OF PRESUMPTIVE CLEANNESS FOR THEIR HUSBANDS.  FOR THOSE WHO RETURN FROM A JOURNEY THEIR WIVES ARE IN THE CONDITION OF PRESUMPTIVE CLEANNESS. GEMARA. What need was there  to state,  THOSE THAT RETURN FROM A JOURNEY? — It might have been presumed that this  applies only to a husband who was in the town, since in such a case the woman thinks of her duties  and duly examines herself, but not to a husband who was not in town since the question of [marital] duty does not occur to her, hence we were informed [that the law applies to the latter case also). Resh Lakish in the name of R. Judah Nesi'ah  observed: But this  applies only where the husband came and found her within her usually clean period.  R. Huna observed: This  was learnt only of a woman who had no settled period, but if she had a settled period intercourse with her is forbidden.  Topsy turvy!  Does not, on the contrary, the reverse stand to reason, since in the case of a woman who has no settled period it might well be assumed that she experienced a discharge, but where she has a settled period [she should be presumed to be clean] since her period was fixed? — Rather, if the statement was at all made it was made in the following terms: R. Huna said, This  was learnt only in the case of a woman the time of whose settled period had not arrived  but if that time had arrived  she is forbidden,  for he  is of the opinion that [the laws of] settled periods  are Pentateuchal. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said: Even if the time of her settled period has arrived she is also permitted,  for he is of the opinion that [the laws relating to] settled period are only Rabbinical.  R. Ashi reported thus: R. Huna said,