Niddah

Raba enquired: Does labour  render all previous counting in zibah  void? Does any discharge that causes uncleanness render all previous counting void and, therefore, this also [does it, since] it causes uncleanness like the days of menstruation; or is it possible that only that which  causes the uncleanness of zibah that renders all the previous counting void, and this, therefore, [does not do it, since] it is no cause of such uncleanness? — Abaye replied: A zibah that is due to an accident provides the answer,  for this is no cause of the uncleanness of zibah  and yet renders all previous counting void.  The other retorted: Indeed, this  also is a cause of the uncleanness of zibah, for we have learnt: If he observed a first discharge he must be examined, if he observed a second discharge he must be examined, but if he observed a third he need not be examined.  But according to R. Eliezer who ruled, 'Even after a third discharge he must be examined'  would you also maintain that, since it is no cause of the uncleanness of zibah, it does not render the previous counting void? — The other replied: According to R. Eliezer the law is so indeed. Come and hear: R. Eliezer ruled, Even after a third discharge he must be examined, but after a fourth one he need not be examined.  Does not this refer to the rendering of previous counting void?  — No, to the imposition on that drop of an uncleanness that may be conveyed through carriage. Come and hear: After a third discharge. R. Eliezer ruled, he must be examined; after a fourth one he need not be examined; and it is in regard to a sacrifice that I said this  but not in regard to the rendering void of all previous counting.  But the fact is that  according to R. Eliezer you may well solve from here that even that which causes no uncleanness of zibah renders all previous counting void. What, however, [it is asked], is the solution of the problem according to the Rabbis? — Come and hear what the father of R. Abin learnt: 'What had his zibah caused him? Seven days.  Hence it renders void the counting of seven days. What had his emission of semen caused him? The [uncleanness of] one day. Hence it renders void the counting of one day'. Now what is meant by 'seven days'? If it be suggested that it causes him to be unclean for seven days, [the objection would arise that] in that case it should have been said: As on account of his zibah he is unclean for seven days. Consequently  it follows, that only that which causes the uncleanness of zibah renders void the counting of the seven days, but that which does not cause the uncleanness of zibah does not render void all previous counting. This is conclusive. Abaye stated: We have an accepted tradition that labour does not render void all previous counting in zibah; and should you find a Tanna who said that it did render the counting void, that must be R. Eliezer. It was taught: R. Marinus ruled, A birth does not render void the previous counting after a zibah.  The question was raised: Is it included in the counting?  — Abaye replied: It neither renders void the days that were previously counted  nor is it counted in the prescribed days.  Raba replied: It does not render void the days counted and it is counted among the prescribed days.  Whence, said Raba, do I derive this? From what was taught: And after that she shall be clean,  'after' means after all of them, implying that no uncleanness may intervene between them.  Now if you agree that [these days]  are included one can well see the justification for saying that no uncleanness may intervene between them, but if you contend that these days  are not included the birth, surely, would cause a break between them. And Abaye?  — He can answer you: The meaning is that the uncleanness of zibah shall not intervene between them.  Whence, said Raba, do I derive this? From what was taught: Of her issue,  'of her issue' implies but not of her leprosy,  'of her issue' but not of her childbirth.  And Abaye?  — He can answer you: Deduce once 'Of her issue  but not of her leprosy' and do not deduce again, 'but not of her childbirth'. And Raba?  — What an argument is this!  If you agree that 'of her issue'  implies 'but not of her childbirth' one can well justify the text; for since it was required for the deduction about childbirth, leprosy also was mentioned on account of childbirth; but if you contend that 'of her issue' implies only 'but not of her leprosy', [the objection would arise] that this could be deduced from And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue,  which implies 'of his issue' and not of his leprosy. And Abaye?  — One  refers to a zab and the other to a zabah, both being necessary. For if the All Merciful had only written