Niddah

HOW [IS ONE TO UNDERSTAND THE RULING THAT] 'IT SUFFICES [TO RECKON HER PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME SHE DISCOVERS THE FLOW' etc. What need was there  for stating, IF SHE WAS SITTING ON A BED AND WAS OCCUPIED WITH RITUALLY CLEAN OBJECTS, when it should rather have been stated,  IF SHE WAS OCCUPIED  WITH RITUALLY CLEAN OBJECTS AND HAVING LEFT THEM, OBSERVED A FLOW? — It is this that we were informed:  The reason [why the bed is regarded as clean is] because [in the case of that woman]  it suffices [for her to reckon] her [period of uncleanness from the] time [of her discovery of the flow] but  [where the uncleanness extends backwards over] twenty-four hours the bed also is regarded as unclean.  This provides support for Ze'iri, for Ze'iri ruled: [A woman  during] the twenty-four hours preceding her discovery of a menstrual flow causes bed and seat  to convey uncleanness to a man who in turn conveys it to his clothes.  But consider: This bed is a thing that has no sense to answer questions,  and is not doubtful uncleanness  in the case of an object that has no sense to answer questions regarded as clean?  Ze'iri explained: [This  refers to a case] where her friends were carrying her in the bed so that the latter may be regarded as the hand of her friends.  Now, however, that R. Johanan ruled that in the case of doubtful uncleanness conveyed through a human agency  the object in doubt,  though lying on the ground, is deemed to be capable of answering questions as if it had been a human being who has the sense to answer questions  [this  holds good] even though her friends were not carrying her in the bed. [Reverting to] the [above] text, 'R. Johanan ruled: In the case of doubtful uncleanness conveyed through a human agency the object in doubt, though lying on the ground, is deemed to be capable of answering questions as if it had been a human being who has the sense to answer questions'.  An objection was raised: If a man was wrapping himself in his cloak while clean or unclean objects were at his side  or above his head and it is doubtful whether there was contact  or not, they  are deemed to be clean,  but if it was impossible [for the cloak and the other objects] not to have come in contact they  are regarded as unclean. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled: The man is told, 'Do it again'  and he does it again.  They,  however, said to him: No repetition [test  is recognized] in questions of cleanness.  Now why [should they  be clean]  seeing that this is a case of uncleanness that is conveyed through a human agency?  — This is beside the point,  for R. Hoshaia learnt: In a private domain [such a case of] doubtful uncleanness  is regarded as unclean, and in a public domain it is regarded as clean. [Reverting to] the [above] text, 'Ze'iri ruled: [A woman during] the twenty-four hours preceding her discovery of a menstrual flow causes bed and seat to convey uncleanness to a man who in turn conveys it to his clothes'.  But, surely, this cannot be correct.  For did not Abimi from Be Hozai  when he came bring with him  a Baraitha which stated, 'During the twenty-four hours preceding the discovery of her menstrual flow a woman's bed and seat are [as unclean] as the object she touches', which means, does it not, that as an object she touches does not convey uncleanness to a human being  so also does not her bed convey uncleanness to a human being?  — Raba retorted: And do you understand this ruling  seeing that it [may be refuted by an inference] a minori ad majus: If an earthen vessel that was covered with a tight fitting lid, which is protected from uncleanness in a corpse's tent,  is yet not so protected [from the uncleanness] of the twenty-four hours preceding the discovery of a menstrual flow,  is it not logical that the beds and seats [of a menstruant], which are not protected from uncleanness in a corpse's tent, should not be protected from the uncleanness of the twenty-four hours preceding the discovery of a menstrual flow?  — But did not Abimi of Be Hozai quote a Baraitha?  — Read:  A woman's bed and seat