Niddah

WHO IS REGARDED AS 'VIRGIN'? ANY WOMAN, EVEN THOUGH SHE IS MARRIED, WHO HAS NEVER YET OBSERVED A FLOW. 'A WOMAN IN PREGNANCY'? ONE WHOSE EMBRYO CAN BE DISCERNED. 'A NURSING WOMAN'? A WOMAN BEFORE SHE HAS WEANED HER CHILD. IF SHE GAVE HER CHILD TO A NURSING WOMAN, IF SHE WEANED IT, OR IF IT DIED, R. MEIR RULED: SHE CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS RETROSPECTIVELY FOR TWENTY-FOUR HOURS;  BUT THE SAGES RULED: IT SUFFICES FOR HER  [TO RECKON HER PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME OF HER [OBSERVATION OF THE FLOW]. WHO IS REGARDED AS 'AN OLD WOMAN'? ANY WOMAN OVER WHOM THREE 'ONAHS  HAVE PASSED  NEAR THE TIME OF HER OLD AGE.  R. ELIEZER  RULED: FOR ANY WOMAN  OVER WHOM HAVE PASSED  THREE 'ONAHS IT SUFFICES [TO RECKON HER PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME OF HER [OBSERVING OF A FLOW]. R. JOSE RULED: FOR A WOMAN IN PREGNANCY AND A NURSING WOMAN OVER WHOM THREE 'ONAHS HAVE PASSED  IT SUFFICES [TO RECKON THEIR PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME OF THEIR [OBSERVATION OF THE FLOW]. AND OF WHAT DID THEY  SPEAK  WHEN THEY LAID DOWN  THAT 'IT SUFFICES [FOR THEM TO RECKON] THEIR PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM THE TIME [OF THEIR DISCOVERING OF THE FLOW]'? OF A FIRST OBSERVATION,  BUT AT A SUBSEQUENT OBSERVATION  SHE CONVEYS UNCLEANNESS RETROSPECTIVELY FOR A PERIOD OF TWENTY-FOUR HOURS. IF, HOWEVER, SHE SUFFERED THE FIRST FLOW ON ACCOUNT OF AN ACCIDENT  IT SUFFICES FOR HER EVEN AT A SUBSEQUENT OBSERVATION [TO RECKON HER UNCLEANNESS FROM] THE TIME OF HER [OBSERVING OF THE FLOW]. GEMARA. It was taught: R. Eliezer said to R. Joshua, 'You have not heard  but  I have heard; you have only heard one tradition but I have heard many;  people do not ask him who has not seen the new moon to come and tender evidence  but only him who has seen it.' Throughout the lifetime of  R. Eliezer the people acted in accordance with the ruling of R. Joshua, but after the passing away of R. Eliezer, R. Joshua re-introduced the earlier practice.  Why did he  not follow R. Eliezer during his lifetime? — Because R. Eliezer was a disciple of Shammai  and he  felt that if they  would act in agreement with his ruling in one matter  they  would act in agreement with his rulings in other matters also  and that out of respect for R. Eliezer no one could interfere  with them; but after the passing away of R. Eliezer, when the people  could well be interfered with, he  re-introduced the original practice. Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in four cases. One is that which has just been mentioned.  The other is that about a woman who was in a hard travail  [concerning whom it was stated:] For how long must she be relieved from pain  so as to be regarded a zabah?  Twenty-four hours;  so R. Eliezer.  And the halachah is in agreement with his view.  And the third  is the following: 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 days,  R. Eliezer ruled: Behold these  are in a presumptive condition of cleanness,  and R. Joshua ruled: They are entitled [to reckon as clean] only the first day and the seventh day,  while R. Akiba ruled: They are entitled [to reckon as clean] the seventh day alone,  and it was taught: R. Simeon and R. Jose stated, 'The view of R. Eliezer  is more feasible than that of R. Joshua,  while that of R. Akiba is more feasible than those of both,  but the halachah agrees with that of R. Eliezer'.  And the fourth is the following.  For we have learnt: If the outer sides  of vessels were rendered unclean  by liquids,  R. Eliezer ruled, they convey uncleanness  to other liquids  but they  do not render foodstuffs unfit.  'They convey uncleanness to liquids' even where the latter are common, but they 'do not render foodstuffs unfit', even where the latter are terumah. R. Joshua ruled: They convey uncleanness to liquids and also render foodstuffs unfit.  Said R. Joshua: This may be inferred a minori ad majus: If a tebul yom who  does not convey uncleanness to a common liquid,  nevertheless renders foodstuffs of terumah unfit how much more then should the outsides of vessels which do convey uncleanness to an unconsecrated liquid render foodstuffs of terumah unfit. And R. Eliezer?  — The uncleanness of the outsides of vessels  is only Rabbinical  while that of a tebul yom  is pentateuchal;  and, where it is a question of deducing a Rabbinical from a Pentateuchal law, no inference a minori ad majus can be applied.  For in accordance with Pentateuchal law no foodstuff conveys uncleanness to a vessel and no liquid conveys uncleanness to a vessel, and it is only the Rabbis that have ordained such uncleanness as a preventive measure against possible laxity in the case of the fluid  of a zab or a zabah;  hence it is only in the case of liquids, which are prone to contract uncleanness, that the Rabbis have enacted a preventive measure, but in that of foodstuffs, since they are not prone to contract uncleanness, the Rabbis enacted no preventive measure. What, however, is the reason for the mention of the outsides of vessels?  — Because their restrictions are lighter.  For we have learnt: If the outside of a vessel came in contact with unclean liquids,  its outside becomes unclean while its inside, its hanger,  its rim and its handles remain clean, but if its inside has become unclean all of it is unclean. But what does Samuel teach us,  seeing that in all these cases we learnt that the law [was in agreement with R. Eliezer]? And should you reply that he mainly informed us about the 'outsides of vessels' concerning which we did not learn [elsewhere what the law was], why [it could be retorted] did he not simply state, 'The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer in the case of the outsides of vessels'? — The fact is that it is this that he informed us:  That the halachah may not be derived from a theoretical statement. But are there no more [than the four rulings]?  Is there not in fact another, since we have learnt: R. Eliezer ruled,