Niddah

R. Huna stated: The discharge of a zab resembles the dough water of barley. The discharge of the zab issues from dead flesh while semen issues from live flesh. The former is watery and resembles the white of a crushed egg while the latter is viscous and resembles the white of a sound egg. THE BLOOD OF A WOMAN AFTER CHILDBIRTH WHO DID NOT UNDERGO RITUAL IMMERSION etc. It was taught: Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai, Do you not agree that if a menstruant who did not undergo ritual Immersion observed some blood she is unclean?  Said Beth Shammai to them: [This is] no [comparison]. If you apply this law  to a menstruant who, even after she had undergone immersion, is unclean if she observed a discharge, would you also apply it to a woman after childbirth who, if she had undergone immersion and then observed a discharge, is clean? The former retorted: The case of one who gave birth during zibah proves our case; for if such a woman had undergone ritual immersion  and observed a discharge after the counted days she is clean  while if she did not undergo immersion and observed a discharge she is unclean. The latter replied: The same law  applies,  and this is our reply. This then implies that they  are in disagreement.  But have we not learnt: THEY  AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT IF SHE GAVE BIRTH WHILE IN ZIBAH, IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY? — This is no difficulty, since the latter  refers to one who already counted the prescribed days while the former  refers to one who did not count them.  And so it was also taught: If a woman who gave birth during zibah had counted the prescribed number of clean days but did not undergo ritual immersion and then observed a discharge. Beth Shammai gave their ruling  in accordance with their own view  and Beth Hillel ruled in accordance with their own view. It was stated: Rab said, [the blood discharge  emanates  from] one and the same source; but it is the Torah that declared it unclean during one period  and clean during another.  Levi, however, said, It emanates from two different sources. When the unclean one is closed  the clean one opens, and when the clean one closes,  the unclean one opens. What is the practical difference between them?  — The practical difference between them is the case of a continuous discharge from within the seven days into the period following these seven days, or from within the fourteen days into the period after the fourteenth, or from within the forty days to the period after the forty days or from within the eighty days into the period following eighty days. According to Rab the law is to be relaxed in the first case  and restricted in the latter;  but according to Levi the law is to be restricted in the first case  and relaxed in the latter. An objection was raised: THE BLOOD OF A WOMAN AFTER CHILDBIRTH WHO DID NOT UNDERGO RITUAL IMMERSION, BETH SHAMMAI RULED, IS LIKE HER SPITTLE AND HER URINE, BUT BETH HILLEL RULED: IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY, It was now presumed that this is a case where  there was a break.  This then is satisfactory according to Rab who said that the discharge emanates from one and the same source,  for this reason it conveys uncleanness both when wet and dry.  But according to Levi who said that it emanated from two different sources why  should it convey uncleanness both when wet and when dry? — Levi can answer you: We are here dealing with the case of a woman whose discharge was continuous.  But if the discharge was continuous, what is Beth Shammai's reason? — Beth Shammai are of the opinion that there exists only once source. According to Levi  one can quite well see the point that divides Beth Shammai from Beth Hillel;  but, according to Rab,  what  is the point that divides them?  — The point that divides them in the question whether  both the termination of the prescribed number of days and also ritual immersion are required; Beth Shammai holding that the All Merciful made the cleanness dependent on the days alone while Beth Hillel hold that  it is dependent on both the days and immersion. Come and hear: THEY AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT IF SHE GAVE BIRTH WHILE IN ZIBAH, IT CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY. It was now assumed that here also  it is a case where there was a break.  Now, according to Rab who stated that there exists only one source one can quite well see the reason why the discharge conveys UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY;  but according to Levi who stated that the sources are two why does the discharge  CONVEY UNCLEANNESS BOTH WHEN WET AND WHEN DRY?  — He can answer you: Here also it is a case of a continuous discharge. But if the discharge was continuous, what was the need of stating the law?  — It was necessary to state it for the sake of Beth Shammai: Although Beth Shammai maintain that there is only one source and that the All Merciful had ordained the uncleanness to be dependent entirely on the lapse of the prescribed number of days,  this applies only to a woman in normal  childbirth, the prescribed number of whose unclean days had passed,  but not to a woman who gave birth in zibah who is required also to count seven clean days. Come and hear: Her sickness shall be unclean  includes  the man who had intercourse with her;  'her sickness shall be unclean'  includes  the nights;  'her sickness shall she be unclean'  includes  a woman who gave birth while in zibah who remains in her uncleanness  until seven clean days have passed.  This  is quite intelligible according to Rab who said that there exists only one source, since it is for this reason that she  requires seven clean days,