Niddah

SHE CONVEYS, HOWEVER, UNCLEANNESS FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS RETROSPECTIVELY. Must it be conceded that this  represents an objection against a view of Raba, since Raba stated: This  tells that  a woman during the days of her zibah does not  cause twenty-four hours retrospective uncleanness? — But was not an objection against Raba raised once before? — It is this that we meant: Must it be conceded that an objection may be raised against Raba from this Mishnah also? — Raba can answer you: When it was stated, SHE CONVEYS, HOWEVER, UNCLEANNESS FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS RETROSPECTIVELY, the reference was to the beginning of this chapter, viz., to a girl who observed a discharge while she was still in her father's house.  As it might have been presumed that, since clean days intervened, the discharge should be regarded as one at the beginning of her menstruation and she  should in consequence convey no retrospective uncleanness for twenty-four hours, hence we were informed [that she does]. BUT IF SHE HAS A SETTLED PERIOD. Must it be conceded that this  presents an objection against the view of R. Huna b. Hiyya cited in the name of Samuel, since R. Huna b. Hiyya citing Samuel stated: This  tells that a woman cannot establish for herself a regular period  during the days of her zibah? — R. Huna b. Hiyya can answer you: When we ruled that 'a woman cannot establish for herself a regular period during the days of her zibah' we meant that it is not necessary for her  to have a change of period three times for the purpose of abolishing a settled period because we maintain that her blood is suspended; and, since her blood is suspended, IT SUFFICES FOR HER TO BE DEEMED UNCLEAN FROM THE TIME OF HER DISCHARGE. R. JUDAH RULED. It was taught: They said to R. Judah, Had her hands been lying in her eyes  throughout twilight you would have spoken well, but now, since it might be assumed that she experienced a discharge as soon as she removed her hands, what practical difference is there between the case where she ascertained her separation to a state of cleanness on the seventh day following the afternoon and that where she has ascertained her separation to a state of cleanness on the first day? 'On the first day'! Is there any authority who holds such a view?  — Yes; and so it was taught: Rabbi stated, 'I once asked R. Jose and R. Simeon when they were underway: What is the law where a menstruant examined herself on the seventh day in the morning and found that she was clean, and at twilight she did not ascertain her separation,  and after some days she examined herself and found that she was unclean? And they replied:  Behold such a woman is in a presumptive state of cleanness. What, I asked, is the law where she examined herself on the sixth, fifth, fourth, third or second? And they replied: There is no difference. As regards an examination on the first day I did not ask, but it was a mistake on my part that I did not ask. For is she not on all these days in a state of presumptive uncleanness and yet as soon as the discharge ceased it is deemed to have completely ceased, so also in regard to the first day as soon as the discharge ceased it may be deemed to have ceased completely'.  What view, however, did he  hold at first?  — [That the woman is unclean] since there is  the presumption of an open source. MISHNAH. IF A ZAB AND A ZABAH  EXAMINED THEMSELVES ON THE FIRST DAY  AND FOUND THEMSELVES CLEAN AND ON THE SEVENTH DAY  ALSO AND FOUND THEMSELVES CLEAN, BUT DID NOT EXAMINE THEMSELVES DURING THE OTHER, INTERVENING, DAYS, R. ELIEZER RULED: BEHOLD THESE ARE IN A PRESUMPTIVE CONDITION OF CLEANNESS. R. JOSHUA RULED: THEY ARE ENTITLED [TO RECKON AS CLEAN] ONLY THE FIRST DAY AND THE SEVENTH DAY. R. AKIBA RULED: THEY ARE ENTITLED TO RECKON AS CLEAN THE SEVENTH DAY ALONE. GEMARA. It was taught: Said R. Eliezer to R. Joshua, According to your view  you would be counting with interruptions; but did not the Torah state, After that she shall be clean,  'after' meaning 'after all of them', implying that no uncleanness may intervene between them?  — Said R. Joshua to him: But do you not agree that a zab who  observed an emission of semen  or a nazirite who  walked under overshadowing branches or mural projections  counts with interruptions though the Torah said,  But the former days shall be void?  And R. Eliezer?  — All is well there  since the All Merciful has said,  So that he is unclean thereby,  implying that it renders void one day only.  And if the imposition of a restriction  be suggested, on account of the possibility of mistaking one uncleanness for another,  it could be retorted: A zab would not be mistaken for one who emitted semen. All is also well  with a nazirite who walked under overshadowing branches or mural projections, since Pentateuchally it is necessary  that the [overshadowing] tent shall be a proper one and it is only the Rabbis who enacted the ruling  as a preventive measure, and no one would mistake a Rabbinic law for a Pentateuchal one; but here,  if we were to take into consideration the possibility of a doubtful observation,  one might mistake this case for one of a certain observation. It was taught: R. Jose and R. Simeon stated, The view of R. Eliezer is more feasible than that of R. Joshua, and the view of R. Akiba is more acceptable than those of all of them, but the halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer. The question was raised: If a zab or a zabah examined themselves on the first day  and on the eighth day  and found that they were clean while on the other days they did not examine themselves,