Related%20passage for Niddah 8:56

ומתניתין בשעת וסתה ור' דוסא היא

it follows that R. Dosa maintains his view even where a flow did not occur at the woman's set time. Who then is the author of the following which the Rabbis taught: Though a woman has a settled period her bloodstain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. one on a garment of hers. ');">⁵⁵</span> is deemed to be unclean retrospectively,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the time it had been washed. ');">⁵⁶</span> for were she to observe a flow when it is not her set time she would be unclean retrospectively for a period of twenty-four hours?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in this case, despite the woman's settled period, the uncleanness is deemed to be retrospective so it is retrospective in the case of the stain also. ');">⁵⁷</span> Must it be conceded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, from what has been said, it is only the Rabbis who impose retrospective uncleanness in the case of a woman who, though having a settled period, suffered a flow before or after that time. ');">⁵⁸</span> to be the Rabbis only and not R. Dosa?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is it likely, however, that R. Dosa would differ from an anonymous Baraitha? ');">⁵⁹</span> — It may be said to be even R. Dosa; for R. Dosa may disagree with the Rabbis only in the case where the flow occurred at the woman's set time but where it occurred when it was not her set time he agrees with them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the uncleanness is retrospective. ');">⁶⁰</span> and our Mishnah deals with one that occurred at her set time and it is, therefore, in agreement with the opinion of R. Dosa

Explore related%20passage for Niddah 8:56. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.