Niddah

Rabba required of R. Huna: What is the ruling where one observed semen on a splinter?  Did the Divine Law say, From him  to indicate that the man is unclean only when it  issued naturally from his body but not when it was brought out by means of a splinter, or is it possible that the expression 'from him' implies [that the man is unclean] only when his uncleanness  has come out of his body, in which case [he is unclean] even though that was effected by means of a splinter? — The other replied: You can infer the ruling [from the fact] that the man himself  becomes unclean only when the quantity of semen emitted suffices to close up the orifice of the membrum.  This then  implies that the man  is regarded as having touched the semen.  But, then, this  should not cause [the counting of the clean days] after a zibah to be void.  Why then was it taught: This is the law of him that hath an issue,  and of him from whom the flow of seed  goeth out,  as zibah  causes [the counting of the clean days] to be void  so does semen? — The other replied: As regards counting again, this is the reason why the previous counting is void: because it is impossible for semen to be emitted  without an admixture of some particles of zibah.  Now then,  this should cause the counting of all the seven days  to be void,  why then was it taught: 'This is the law of him that hath an issue etc.', as zibah causes the clean days to be counted again so does semen? But in case you should assume that as zibah causes the counting of all the seven days  to be void so does semen also, it was expressly stated, So that he is unclean thereby;  you can apply to it  only that which had been said about it,  hence it causes the counting of one day only to be void?  — The other  replied: It is a decree of Scripture that an absolute zibah in which no semen is mixed causes the counting of all seven days to be void, but particles of zibah in which semen is mixed cause only the counting of one day  to be void. R. Jose son of R. Hanina enquired of R. Eleazar: What is the ruling in the case of dry blood?  Did the Divine Law say, Have an issue  of her blood  to indicate that it must be actually flowing,  hence it refers only to fluid blood but not to dry, or is it possible that the expression, 'have all issue of her blood'  was used merely because blood usually flows, but the same law in fact applies to dry blood also? — The other replied: You have learnt it: The blood of a menstruant and the flesh of a corpse convey uncleanness when fresh or when dry.  Said he [R. Jose] to him, 'Where the blood was first fresh and then it dried up, I have no question to ask; my question arises only where it was originally dry'.  'This also', the other replied, 'you have learnt: IF A WOMAN ABORTED AN OBJECT THAT WAS LIKE A RIND, LIKE A HAIR, LIKE EARTH, LIKE RED FLIES, LET HER PUT IT IN WATER