Niddah

R. Samuel b. Bisna enquired of Abaye: 'Is a woman ejecting semen  regarded as observing a discharge or as coming in contact with one?  The practical issue  is the question of rendering  any previous counting  void,  and of conveying uncleanness by means of the smallest quantity  and of conveying uncleanness internally as well as externally'.  But what is the question?  If he  heard of the Baraithas [he should have known that] according to the Rabbis she is regarded as observing a discharge while according to R. Simeon she is regarded as coming in contact with one; and if he  did not hear of the Baraitha,  is it not logical that  she should be regarded as coming in contact with one?  — Indeed he may well have heard of the Baraitha and, as far as the Rabbis are concerned, he had no question at all;  what he did ask concerned only the view of R. Simeon. Furthermore, he had no question  as to whether uncleanness is conveyed internally as externally;  what he did ask was whether any previous counting is rendered void and whether uncleanness is conveyed by means of the smallest quantity. When [he asked in effect] R. Simeon ruled that 'it is enough that she be subject to the same stringency of uncleanness as the man who had intercourse with her' he meant it only in respect of conveying uncleanness internally as externally  but as regards rendering any previous counting void and conveying uncleanness by means of the smallest quantity she is regarded as one observing a discharge, or is it possible that  there is no difference?  There are others who read: Indeed he  may never have heard of the Baraitha,  but  it is this that he asked in effect: Since the All Merciful has considered it proper to impose a restriction  at Sinai on those who emitted semen,  she must be regarded as one who observed a discharge, or is it possible that no inference may be drawn from Sinai, since it was placed under an anomalous law, seeing that zabs and lepers who are elsewhere subject to major restrictions were not subjected by the All Merciful to that restriction?  — The other  replied: She is regarded as one who has observed a discharge. He  then came to Raba  and put the question to him. The latter replied: She is regarded as one who observed a discharge. He thereupon came to R. Joseph who also told him: She is regarded as one who observed a discharge. He  then returned to Abaye and said to him: 'You all spit the same thing',  'We', the other replied, 'only gave you the right answer. For when R. Simeon ruled that "it is enough that she be subject to the same stringency of uncleanness as the man who had intercourse with her" it was only in respect of conveying uncleanness internally as externally,  but in respect of rendering any previous counting void and in respect of conveying uncleanness by means of the smallest quantity she is regarded as one who observed a discharge. Our Rabbis taught: A menstruant,  a zabah,  one who awaits a day for a day  and a woman after childbirth  contract uncleanness internally  as well as externally. Now, the enumeration of three of these cases  may well be justified, but how is one to explain the mention of the woman after childbirth? If the birth  occurred during her menstruation period she is a menstruant,  and if it occurred during her zibah period she is a zabah?  — The mention  was necessary only in the case of one who went down  to perform ritual immersion in order to pass out thereby from the period of uncleanness to that of cleanness;  and this  is in agreement with a ruling given by R. Zera citing R. Hiyya b. Ashi who had it from Rab: If a woman after childbirth went down  to perform ritual immersion in order to pass out thereby from her period of uncleanness to that of cleanness,  and some blood was detached from her body,  while she was going down,  she is unclean,  but if it occurred while she was going up, she is clean.  Said R. Jeremiah to R. Zera: Why should she be unclean if this occurred 'while she was going down'? Is not the blood merely an absorbed uncleanness?  — Go, the other replied, and ask it of R. Abin to whom I have explained the point at the schoolhouse and who nodded to me with his head.  He went and asked him [the question], and the latter replied: This was treated like the carcass of a clean bird which  conveys uncleanness to garments  while it is still passing through the oesophagus.  But are the two cases at all similar