יג לאחר שנזכר אמר כדי הוא ר"א לסמוך עליו
13 R. Huna ruled: [The retrospective uncleanness during] the twenty-four hours [preceding the observation] of a menstrual flow is conveyed only to hallowed things but not to <i>terumah</i>. But if so, should not this law have been mentioned together with those of the other grades [of sanctity]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Hag. 20b where are enumerated the restrictions that are applicable to hallowed things and not to terumah and vice versa. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> — Only cases that involve definite uncleanness are enumerated but any in which no definite uncleanness is involved<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as that of the twenty-four hours' period under discussion where the uncleanness is merely a preventive measure. ');"><sup>35</sup></span> is not mentioned. An objection was raised: What are the things to which she conveys uncleanness? Foodstuffs and drinks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra, in the Baraitha last cited. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> Does not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Foodstuffs and drinks'. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> mean those that are hallowed as well as those that are <i>terumah</i>? — No, only those that are hallowed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The oil of a meal-offering, for instance, or the wine of libation. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> Come and hear: R. Judah ruled [that priestly women must examine their bodies] even after they have concluded a meal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'at the time of their passing away from eating'. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> of <i>terumah</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 11a. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> and the point raised, 'Is not the consumed meal a matter of the past?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what has been, has been', sc. what is the use of an examination after the meal has been consumed when nothing can be done even if the woman were to be found unclean. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> [And to this] R. Hisda replied: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The examination. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> was necessary only for the sake of ensuring the fitness of the remnants before her?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should a woman, for instance, discover a flow later in the day the examination after her morning meal would ensure the cleanness of the terumah that remained from that meal. Thus it follows that in the absence of an examination the terumah would be deemed to be unclean retrospectively. How, then, could R. Huna maintain that the uncleanness is conveyed to hallowed things only? ');"><sup>43</sup></span> — R. Huna reads:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In place of R. Hisda's version of R. Judah's meaning. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> 'To burn the remnants that were in her hands',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc., if she finds herself on examination to be unclean the remnants of her meal, since she touched them, are deemed to be unclean and, as unclean terumah must be burned. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> the examination being held immediately after<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. Keshi'ur weseth (v. Rashi). Evthion (Tosaf. Asheri) [G], 'forthwith' (cf. Jast.). ');"><sup>46</sup></span> [the meal].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it may be taken for granted that the terumah she had just handled had come in contact with a confirmed menstruant. Where, however, the woman held no examination immediately after her meal, a subsequent discovery of a place causes no retrospective uncleanness to the terumah she handled. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> Come and hear: It once happened that Rabbi acted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a young woman who did not suffer a flow during three consecutive periods (of thirty days each). ');"><sup>48</sup></span> in accordance with the ruling of R. Eliezer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the period of uncleanness is to be reckoned from the discovery of the flow and not retrospectively. The Rabbis who differ from R. Eliezer hold this ruling to apply to an old woman only (whose senility might be assumed to be the cause of the irregularity) but not to a young one (cf. prev. n.). ');"><sup>49</sup></span> and after he reminded himself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is discussed presently. ');"><sup>50</sup></span> he observed, 'R. Eliezer deserves to be relied upon