Reference for Niddah 119:58

הא והא רשב"ג ולא קשיא

or is it possible that no difference is made between the two cases? — The other replied: One may not so attribute it. What is the reason? — Because [there is a tradition that]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the uncleanness that is due to a stain is merely of a doubtful nature, it being possible that the stain originated from an external cause, and the woman cannot in consequence be regarded as prone to a discharge. ');">⁵⁰</span> one may not so attribute it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And both women are, therefore, unclean. ');">⁵¹</span> He pointed out to him the following objection: 'Is it not permissible to attribute a stain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Found on the under garment of a woman who was known to be clean. ');">⁵²</span> to [another woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who had previously worn that garment. ');">⁵³</span> who was unclean on account of] a stain. If a woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who discovered the stain. ');">⁵⁴</span> had lent her shirt to a gentile woman or to one who continued unclean by reason of a stain, she may attribute its to her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The stain she discovered. ');">⁵⁵</span> (But is not this Baraitha self contradictory: In the first clause you stated, 'it is not permissible to attribute' while in the final clause you stated that it was permissible to attribute? — This is no difficulty: The former is the view of Rabbi while the latter is that of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. There are some who read: The latter as well as the former represents the view of Rabbi, but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the apparent contradiction. ');">⁵⁶</span> the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'It is permissible to attribute'. ');">⁵⁷</span> applies to her first day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the stain was discovered by the woman on the same day on which the other (to whom the garment had been lent) had found a stain on an under garment of hers which caused her to be unclean on that day and also imposed upon her the restriction of remaining unclean until a second day (a day for a day) had passed. Since she has in any case to lose a second day, the attribution does not cause her any disadvantage. ');">⁵⁸</span> while the former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which does not allow the attribution. ');">⁵⁹</span> applies to her second day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the attribution would place her under a disadvantage by extending her uncleanness to the third day. ');">⁶⁰</span> R. Ashi replied: The former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which does not allow the attribution. ');">⁶¹</span> as well as the latter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'It is permissible to attribute'. ');">⁵⁷</span> represents the view of R; Simeon b. Gamaliel and yet there is no difficulty,

Jastrow

Jastrow