Niddah

Wherein, however, does this  essentially differ  from that of a ritual bath of which we learnt: If a ritual bath  was measured and found lacking, all purifications that have heretofore been effected through it, whether it was in a public  or in a private domain,  are regarded  as unclean?  According to Shammai  the difficulty arises from 'heretofore'; while according to Hillel the difficulty arises, does it not, from the certainty; for, whereas in the case of the twenty-four hours' period  of the menstruant [any terumah  she touched] is only held in suspense, it being neither eaten nor burned,  here  the uncleanness is regarded as a certainty?  — The reason  there  is that it may be postulated that the unclean person shall be regarded as being in his presumptive status  and assumed  not to have performed proper immersion.  On the contrary! Why not postulate that the ritual bath shall be regarded as being in its presumptive status of validity and assume that it was not lacking?  — Surely a lacking [bath] is before you. But in this case also,  is not blood before you? — She has only just now observed it.  In that case  too, is it not  lacking only just now?  — What a comparison!  In that case  it might well be presumed that the water was gradually diminishing,  but can it here also be presumed that she was gradually observing the flow?  — What an objection is this! Is it not possible that she observed the blood only when it was coming in profusion?  — In the former case  there are two unfavourable factors  while in the latter  there is only one unfavourable factor.  Wherein, however,  does this  differ from the case of the jug concerning which we have learnt:  If one tested  a wine jug for the purpose of periodically taking from it terumah [for wine kept in other jugs]  and, subsequently,  it was found to contain vinegar,  all  three days it is certain,  and after that it is doubtful.  Now does not this  present an objection against Shammai?  — The reason there  is that it can be postulated that the tebel  shall be regarded as having its presumptive status, and then it may be presumed that it had not been ritually prepared.  On the contrary! Why not postulate that the wine be regarded as having its presumptive status  and then it might be assumed that it had not become sour? — Surely it stands sour before you. But in that case also  is there not blood before you? — She has only just now observed it. But in that case too  is it not sour only just now? — What a comparison! In the latter case  it might well be presumed that the wine turned sour by degrees,  but can it also be said in the former case  that she observed the flow by degrees?  — What an objection is this! Is it not possible that she observed the blood only when it came in profusion? — In the former case  there are two unfavourable factors  while in the latter  there is only one such factor. An incongruity, however, was pointed out between the case of the jug  and that of the ritual bath:  Wherein lies the essential difference between the two  that in the latter case  [the retrospective uncleanness is regarded as] a certainty while in that of the former  [the uncleanness of the terumah is deemed] doubtful? — R. Hanina of Sura replied: Who is the author [of the ruling concerning the] jug? R. Simeon, who in respect of a ritual bath also regards [the retrospective uncleanness] as a matter of doubt; for it was taught:  If a ritual bath was measured and found lacking all purifications heretofore effected through it whether it was in a public or in a private domain, are regarded as unclean.  R. Simeon ruled: In a public domain they are regarded as clean but in a private domain they are regarded as being in suspense.                                               Folio 2a

Wherein, however, does this  essentially differ  from that of a ritual bath of which we learnt: If a ritual bath  was measured and found lacking, all purifications that have heretofore been effected through it, whether it was in a public  or in a private domain,  are regarded  as unclean?  According to Shammai  the difficulty arises from 'heretofore'; while according to Hillel the difficulty arises, does it not, from the certainty; for, whereas in the case of the twenty-four hours' period  of the menstruant [any terumah  she touched] is only held in suspense, it being neither eaten nor burned,  here  the uncleanness is regarded as a certainty?  — The reason  there  is that it may be postulated that the unclean person shall be regarded as being in his presumptive status  and assumed  not to have performed proper immersion.  On the contrary! Why not postulate that the ritual bath shall be regarded as being in its presumptive status of validity and assume that it was not lacking?  — Surely a lacking [bath] is before you. But in this case also,  is not blood before you? — She has only just now observed it.  In that case  too, is it not  lacking only just now?  — What a comparison!  In that case  it might well be presumed that the water was gradually diminishing,  but can it here also be presumed that she was gradually observing the flow?  — What an objection is this! Is it not possible that she observed the blood only when it was coming in profusion?  — In the former case  there are two unfavourable factors  while in the latter  there is only one unfavourable factor.  Wherein, however,  does this  differ from the case of the jug concerning which we have learnt:  If one tested  a wine jug for the purpose of periodically taking from it terumah [for wine kept in other jugs]  and, subsequently,  it was found to contain vinegar,  all  three days it is certain,  and after that it is doubtful.  Now does not this  present an objection against Shammai?  — The reason there  is that it can be postulated that the tebel  shall be regarded as having its presumptive status, and then it may be presumed that it had not been ritually prepared.  On the contrary! Why not postulate that the wine be regarded as having its presumptive status  and then it might be assumed that it had not become sour? — Surely it stands sour before you. But in that case also  is there not blood before you? — She has only just now observed it. But in that case too  is it not sour only just now? — What a comparison! In the latter case  it might well be presumed that the wine turned sour by degrees,  but can it also be said in the former case  that she observed the flow by degrees?  — What an objection is this! Is it not possible that she observed the blood only when it came in profusion? — In the former case  there are two unfavourable factors  while in the latter  there is only one such factor. An incongruity, however, was pointed out between the case of the jug  and that of the ritual bath:  Wherein lies the essential difference between the two  that in the latter case  [the retrospective uncleanness is regarded as] a certainty while in that of the former  [the uncleanness of the terumah is deemed] doubtful? — R. Hanina of Sura replied: Who is the author [of the ruling concerning the] jug? R. Simeon, who in respect of a ritual bath also regards [the retrospective uncleanness] as a matter of doubt; for it was taught:  If a ritual bath was measured and found lacking all purifications heretofore effected through it whether it was in a public or in a private domain, are regarded as unclean.  R. Simeon ruled: In a public domain they are regarded as clean but in a private domain they are regarded as being in suspense.