Niddah

THE SAGES, HOWEVER, RULED: [THE LAW IS] NEITHER IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OPINION OF THE FORMER NOR IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT OF THE LATTER etc. Our Rabbis taught: And the Sages ruled, [The law is] neither in agreement with the opinion of the former nor in agreement with that of the latter, neither [that is] in agreement with the opinion of Shammai who  provided no fence for his ruling  nor in agreement with the opinion of Hillel who  restricted far too much,  but [the women are deemed to be unclean] during the preceding twenty-four hours when this lessens the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, and during the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination when this lessens the period of twenty-four hours. '[The women are deemed to be unclean] during the preceding twenty-four hours when this lessens the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination'. How is this to be understood? If a woman examined her body on a Sunday  and found herself to be clean and then she spent Monday and Tuesday without holding any examination while on Wednesday she examined herself and found that she was unclean, it is not ruled that she should be deemed to be unclean retrospectively from the previous examination to the last examination but only [that she should be deemed to be unclean] during the preceding twenty-four hours. 'And during the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination when this lessens the period of twenty-four hours'. How is this to be understood? If the woman examined her body during the first hour of the day and found herself to be clean and then she spent the second and the third hour without holding any examination while in the fourth hour she examined herself and found that she was unclean, it is not ruled that she should be deemed to be unclean retrospectively for a period of twenty-four hours but only during the period from the previous examination to the last examination. But is it not obvious that, since she has examined herself during the first hour and found that she was clean, she is not to be deemed unclean retrospectively for twenty-four hours?  — As it was taught, 'during the preceding twenty-four hours when this lessens the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination'  it also stated,  'during the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination when this lessens the period of twenty-four hours'. Rabbah stated: What is the reason of the Rabbis?  Because a woman well feels herself.  Said Abaye to him: If so,  [a period of uncleanness from] the time of her observation of the flow should suffice!  And Rabbah?  — He only wished to exercise Abaye's wits.  What then is the reason of the Rabbis?  — It is one such as that which Rab Judah gave in the name of Samuel: The Sages have ordained for the daughters of Israel that they should examine themselves in the morning and in the evening; 'in the morning', in order to verify the cleanness of objects they handled during the previous night,  'and in the evening' in order to verify the cleanness of objects they handled during the previous day;  but this woman,  since she did not [regularly] examine her body,  has  lost one 'onah.  But what could be meant by 'one 'onah'?  — One additional 'onah.  Said R. Papa to Raba: But would you not sometimes find that there are three 'onahs in twenty-four hours?  — The Sages have laid down a uniform limit  in order that there shall be no variations in the twenty-four hours' period. And  if you prefer I might reply:  [the period extends to three 'onahs] in order that the sinner  shall not  be at an advantage.  What is the practical difference between them?  — The practical difference between them is the case of a woman who was the victim of circumstances and in consequence of which she did not hold her examination. FOR ANY WOMAN WHO HAS A SETTLED PERIOD etc. Must it be conceded that our Mishnah represents the view of R. Dosa and not that of the Rabbis seeing that it was taught:  R. Eliezer ruled, For four classes of women it suffices [to reckon the period of their uncleanness from the time they discovered the discharge,] viz., a virgin,  a pregnant woman, a woman that gives suck and an old woman; and R. Dosa ruled, For any woman who has a settled period it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovered the discharge?  — It may even be held [that our Mishnah represents the view of] the Rabbis, for the Rabbis differ from R. Dosa only [in respect of a flow] that did not occur at the woman's set time  but [in the case of one that did occur] at her set time they might agree with him; and our Mishnah deals with a flow that occurred at the woman's set time and it, therefore, represents the view of both.  Thus  it follows that R. Dosa maintains his view even where a flow did not occur at the woman's set time. Who then is the author of the following which the Rabbis taught: Though a woman has a settled period her bloodstain  is deemed to be unclean retrospectively,  for were she to observe a flow when it is not her set time she would be unclean retrospectively for a period of twenty-four hours?  Must it be conceded  to be the Rabbis only and not R. Dosa?  — It may be said to be even R. Dosa; for R. Dosa may disagree with the Rabbis only in the case where the flow occurred at the woman's set time but where it occurred when it was not her set time he agrees with them;  and our Mishnah deals with one that occurred at her set time and it is, therefore, in agreement with the opinion of R. Dosa