Niddah

Resh Lakish stated: According to him who holds the blood to be unclean the woman also  is unclean  and according to him who holds the blood to be clean the woman also is clean. R. Johanan, however, stated: Even according to him who holds the blood to be unclean the woman is clean. In this R. Johanan follows a view he previously expressed. For R. Johanan citing R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: Whence is it deduced that a woman is not unclean  unless the discharge issues through its normal channel? From Scripture which says, And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness,  and shall uncover her nakedness — he hath made naked her fountain,  which teaches that a woman is not unclean  unless the discharge of her sickness issues through its normal channel. Resh Lakish citing R. Judah Nesi'ah  ruled: If the uterus  became detached and dropped upon the ground the woman is unclean, for it is said, Because thy filthiness  was poured out,  and thy nakedness  uncovered.  In what respect?  If it be suggested: In that of an uncleanness for seven days  [the objection would arise:] Did not the All Merciful speak of blood and not of a solid piece? — As a matter of fact the reference is to the uncleanness until evening. R. Johanan ruled: If the uterus produced a discharge that was  like two pearl drops  the woman is unclean. In what respect? Should it be suggested: In respect of an uncleanness for seven days  [it might be objected:] Are there not just five unclean kinds of the blood for a woman, and no more? — The fact is that the reference is to the uncleanness until evening.  This, however, applies only to two drops but if there was only one drop it may be assumed that it originated elsewhere. ALL WOMEN ARE SUBJECT TO UNCLEANNESS [IF BLOOD APPEARED] IN THE OUTER CHAMBER. Which is the OUTER CHAMBER? — Resh Lakish replied: All that part which, when a child sits, is exposed. Said R. Johanan to him: Is not that place deemed exposed as regards contact with a dead creeping thing?  Rather, said R. Johanan, as far as the glands.  The question was raised: Is the region between the glands regarded as internal or as external? — Come and hear what R. Zakkai taught: The region up to the glands and that between the glands is regarded as internal. In a Baraitha it was taught: As far as the threshing-place. What is meant by threshing-place? — Rab Judah replied: The place where the attendant threshes. Our Rabbis taught: In her flesh  teaches that she  contracts uncleanness internally as externally. But from this text I would only know of the menstruant, whence the deduction that the same law applies to a zabah? It was explicitly stated, Her issue  in her flesh.  Whence the proof that the same law applies also to one who emitted semen? It was explicitly stated, Be.  R. Simeon, however, ruled: It is enough that she be subject to the same stringency of uncleanness as the man who had intercourse with her. As he is not subject to uncleanness unless the unclean discharge issued forth, so is she not subject to uncleanness unless her unclean discharge issued forth. But could R. Simeon maintain that 'it is enough that she be subject to the same stringency of uncleanness as the man who had intercourse with her'? Was it not in fact taught: 'They shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even.  What, said R. Simeon, does this  come to teach us? If that it applies also to one who came in contact with semen  [it could be retorted:] Was it not in fact  stated below, Or from whomsoever [the flow of seed goeth out]?  But [this is the purpose of the text:] Since the uncleanness arises in a concealed region  and since an uncleanness in a concealed region is elsewhere ineffective, a special Scriptural ordinance was required  [to give it effect in this particular case]'  — This is no difficulty: The latter deals with one who received the semen at intercourse,  while the former refers to one who ejected it subsequently.  'Ejected'! Should not her uncleanness be due  to her preceding intercourse?  — This is a case where she had undergone ritual immersion in respect of her intercourse.  This then  says that for one who had intercourse it suffices to be unclean only until the evening. But did not Raba rule: A woman who had intercourse is forbidden to eat terumah for three days since it is impossible that she should not eject some semen during that time?  — Here  we are dealing with one who was immersed  with her bed.  It may thus  be inferred that Raba  spoke of a woman  who went herself on foot and performed immersion, but then is it not possible that she had ejected the semen while she was walking?