Niddah

Another version reads as follows. Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: R. Judah declared the woman unclean only where the object had the colour of one of the four kinds of blood, but if it had that of any of the other kinds of blood she is clean. But is this correct? Surely when R. Hoshaia arrived from Nehardea he came [to the schoolhouse] and brought with him a Baraitha: If a woman aborted a shapeless object that was red, black, green or white, if there was blood with it, she is unclean, otherwise she is clean; but R. Judah ruled: In either case she is unclean. Now here red, black, green and white were mentioned and R. Judah nevertheless disagrees.  And should you reply that R. Judah differs only in respect of red and black but not in that of green and white [the question would arise]: For  whose benefit then was green and white mentioned? If it be suggested: For that of the Rabbis [it could be retorted]: Since the Rabbis declared the woman clean even in the case of red and black blood, was it any longer necessary to state that the same law applies also to green and white? Must it not then be conceded that these were mentioned for the benefit of R. Judah who,  it thus follows, does differ?  — Rather, said R. Johanan,  the point at issue between them is the question whether it is possible for the uterus to open without bleeding.  They thus differ on the same principle as that on which the following Tannas differ. For it was taught: If a woman was in hard labour for two days and on the third she aborted and she does not know what she had aborted, her case is one of doubtful childbirth and doubtful zibah, and she must, therefore, bring a sacrifice which may not be eaten. R. Joshua ruled: She must bring a sacrifice, and it may be eaten, since it is impossible for the uterus to open without some bleeding. Our Rabbis taught: If a woman aborted a shapeless object. Symmachus ruled in the name of R. Meir, and R. Simeon b. Menasia likewise gave the same ruling: It must be split, and if there was blood in it the woman is unclean and if there is none in it she is clean. This is in agreement with the Rabbis but also more restrictive than the ruling of the Rabbis. It is 'in agreement with the Rabbis' who ruled that it was possible for the uterus to open without bleeding; but it is 'also more restrictive than the ruling of the Rabbis', since they hold that only where the blood was with it  is the woman unclean  but not where it was only within it,  while Symmachus holds that [the woman is unclean] even if the blood was only within it.  Another [Baraitha] taught: If a woman aborted a shapeless object. R. Aha ruled: It must be split, and if its interior shows red,  the woman is unclean, otherwise she is clean. This is in agreement with Symmachus,  but also more restrictive than the ruling of Symmachus.  Again another [Baraitha] taught: If a woman aborted a shapeless object, R. Benjamin ruled: It must be split, and if there was a bone in it, its mother is unclean by reason of childbirth.  R. Hisda explained: This applies only to a white object.  So also when a pair [of scholars]  from Adiabene arrived they came [into the schoolhouse] and brought with them the following Baraitha: If a woman aborted a white shapeless object it must be split and if there was a bone in it the mother is unclean by reason of childbirth. R. Johanan citing R. Simeon b. Yohai ruled: If a woman aborted a shapeless object it must be split, and if it contained a quantity of accumulated blood she is unclean, otherwise  she is clean. This is in agreement with Symmachus  but is also the most lenient of all the previous rulings. R. Jeremiah enquired of R. Zera: What is the ruling where a woman observed a discharge of blood in a tube?  Since the All Merciful has said, In her flesh  He implied: But not in a tube,  or is it possible that the text, 'In her flesh', was required for the deduction that it  causes uncleanness within  as well as without?  — The other replied: The All Merciful said, In her flesh  implying: But not in a tube; for if the expression 'In her flesh' had been required for the deduction that it  causes uncleanness within as well as without, Scripture should have said, Her flesh,  why then did it say, 'In her flesh'? Both rulings may, therefore, be deduced. But did not R. Johanan rule in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: If a woman aborted a shapeless object it must be split, and if there was in it a quantity of accumulated blood she is unclean, otherwise she is clean?  — What a comparison!  In that case it is usual for a woman to observe blood in a shapeless abortion,  but in this case it is not usual for a woman to observe blood in a tube. May it be suggested that the question of blood in a tube is a point at issue between Tannas? For it was taught: If a woman aborted a shapeless object, even though it is full of blood, it is only where there was a discharge of blood with it  that the woman is unclean; otherwise she is clean. R. Eliezer ruled: 'In her flesh'  implies: But not [where the blood was] within a sac or within any shapeless abortion. (Is not R. Eliezer's ruling identical with that of the first Tanna?  — Read: For R. Eliezer ruled, 'In her flesh' implies: But not [where the blood was] within a sac or within any shapeless abortion). But the Sages ruled: This is not menstrual blood but the blood of a shapeless object.  Now does not the first Tanna also declare her clean?  But the fact is that the difference between them is the case where the abortion was chapped. The first Tanna is of the opinion that 'In her flesh' implies: But not [where the blood was] in a sac or in a shapeless object,  and the same applies also to a tube.  This, however, holds good only where it  was smooth,  but if it was chapped  the woman is unclean. What is his reason? It may be described as 'In her flesh'.  Thereupon the Rabbis came to declare: Although it  was chapped [the woman is clean since] the discharge is not menstrual but that of the shapeless object.  Menstrual blood, however, is undoubtedly a cause of uncleanness  even if it was in a tube!  — Abaye replied: As regards a tube all  agree that the woman is clean,