Niddah

An objection was raised: But both hold the same opinion,  where a zab and a zabah examined themselves on the first day and on the eighth day and found themselves clean, that they may count the eighth day only as clean.  Now who are referred to in the expression 'both hold the same opinion'? Is it not R. Eliezer and R. Joshua?  — No; R. Joshua and R. Akiba. R. Shesheth citing R. Jeremiah b. Abba who had it from Rab stated: If a menstruant has ascertained her separation to a state of cleanness on her third day,  she may count it in the number of the seven clean days.  'A menstruant'! What need has she for counting?  — Rather read: If a zabah has ascertained her separation to a state of cleanness on her third day,  she may count it in the number of the seven clean days.  Said R. Shesheth to R. Jeremiah b. Abba: Did then Rab pronounce his ruling in agreement with the view of the Samaritans who ruled that the day on which a woman ceases to have her discharge may be counted by her in the number of the prescribed seven days?  — When Rab spoke he meant: Exclusive of the third day.  But if 'exclusive of the third day' is not the ruling obvious? — The ruling was necessary only in a case, for instance, where the woman  did not examine herself until the seventh day,  so that  we were informed there  that an examination at the beginning  suffices although there was none at the end,  while here  we were informed that an examination at the end  suffices  even though there was none at the beginning.  As it might have been presumed that only where there was an examination at the beginning,  though there was none at the end,  do we assume [the days to be clean], because we regard them as remaining in their presumptive state,  but not where the examination was held at their conclusion  and  not at their beginning,  hence we were informed [that in either case the days are regarded as clean]. But can this  be correct seeing that  when Rabin came  he stated, 'R. Jose b. Hanina raised an objection [from a Baraitha dealing with] a forgetful  woman but I do not know what his objection was', and  we have an established rule that during the first week of her appearance before us we require her to undergo immersion in the nights  but we do not require her to undergo immersion in the day time. Now if it could be entertained that it is not necessary that the days  be counted in our presence, she  should have been made to undergo immersion in the day time also, since it is possible that she gave birth during a zibah period and had completed the counting on that day. Must it not consequently be inferred from the ruling that it is necessary for the counting to take place in our presence?  — But have we not explained this ruling to be in agreement with the view of R. Akiba who ruled that it was necessary for the counting to take place in our presence?  — And whence do you infer that according to the Rabbis it is not necessary for the counting to take place in our presence? — From what was taught:  'If a forgetful  woman stated, "I observed some uncleanness on a certain day",  she  is expected to undergo nine immersions, seven  in respect of menstruation  and two  in respect of zibah.  If she states, "I observed some uncleanness at twilight", she is to undergo eleven immersions'. 'Eleven'! For what purpose?  — R. Jeremiah of Difti replied: This is a case, for instance, where the woman  actually appeared before us at twilight,  so that provision has to be made for  eight immersions in respect of menstruation  and for three in respect of zibah.  'If she states, "I observed no discharge whatsoever", she is to undergo fifteen immersions'.  Raba observed: 'This kind of law that is a negation of all reason  is in vogue at Galhi where there is a law that one who owns a bull must feed the town's cattle one day while one who owns no bull must feed them on two days. Once they had occasion to deal with  an orphan the son of a widow. Having been entrusted with the bulls [to feed] he proceeded to kill them, saying to the people, "He who owned a bull shall receive one hide and he who owned no bull shall receive two hides". "What", they said to him, "is this that you say?" "The conclusion of this process", he answered them, "follows the same principle as the beginning of the process. Was it not the case with the beginning of this process that one who owned nothing was better off? Well, at the conclusion of the process too, one who owned nothing is better off". Here also: If where a woman states, "I observed a discharge", it suffices for her to undergo either nine immersions or eleven immersions,  should it be necessary for her, where she states, "I observed no discharge whatsoever", to undergo fifteen immersions?' — Rather read thus: If she states, 'I observed a discharge and I do not know how long it continued  and whether I observed it during a menstruation period or a zibah one', she is to undergo fifteen immersions. For if she appeared before us in the day-time we allow her seven days in respect of menstruation