כ אזל שייליה א"ל עשאוה כנבלת עוף טהור שמטמאה בגדים בבית הבליעה מי דמי
20 — The other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> replied: She is regarded as one who has observed a discharge. He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Samuel b. Bisna. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> then came to Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. Rabbah (BaH.). ');"><sup>35</sup></span> and put the question to him. The latter replied: She is regarded as one who observed a discharge. He thereupon came to R. Joseph who also told him: She is regarded as one who observed a discharge. He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Samuel b. Bisna. ');"><sup>34</sup></span> then returned to Abaye and said to him: 'You all spit the same thing',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'spittle', i.e., your opinions are all traceable to the same source. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> 'We', the other replied, 'only gave you the right answer. For when R. Simeon ruled that "it is enough that she be subject to the same stringency of uncleanness as the man who had intercourse with her" it was only in respect of conveying uncleanness internally as externally,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. as the man is free from internal uncleanness so is she. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> but in respect of rendering any previous counting void and in respect of conveying uncleanness by means of the smallest quantity she is regarded as one who observed a discharge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in the case of the man also (to whose degree of uncleanness hers is compared) any previous counting is rendered void and the smallest quantity conveys uncleanness. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> Our Rabbis taught: A menstruant,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After one observation during her menstrual period. ');"><sup>39</sup></span> a zabah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. If this single observation is followed by two other observations the woman is a confirmed zabah and must count seven days before she attains to cleanness, but if no other observation followed she only awaits one clean day for the unclean one. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> one who awaits a day for a day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. mut. mut. If this single observation is followed by two other observations the woman is a confirmed zabah and must count seven days before she attains to cleanness, but if no other observation followed she only awaits one clean day for the unclean one. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> and a woman after childbirth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained presently. ');"><sup>41</sup></span> contract uncleanness internally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. as soon as the discharge made its way into the vagina. ');"><sup>42</sup></span> as well as externally. Now, the enumeration of three of these cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., '(almost) all of them'. ');"><sup>43</sup></span> may well be justified, but how is one to explain the mention of the woman after childbirth? If the birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the discharge observed. ');"><sup>44</sup></span> occurred during her menstruation period she is a menstruant,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was already specifically enumerated among the first three cases. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> and if it occurred during her <i>zibah</i> period she is a zabah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was already specifically enumerated among the first three cases. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> — The mention<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the woman after childbirth. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> was necessary only in the case of one who went down<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the seven or fourteen days of uncleanness following the birth of a male and a female respectively. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> to perform ritual immersion in order to pass out thereby from the period of uncleanness to that of cleanness;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The period of thirty-three clean days after the seven, and the sixty-six clean days after the fourteen (cf. prev. n.). ');"><sup>48</sup></span> and this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling that a woman in such circumstances contracts uncleanness internally. ');"><sup>49</sup></span> is in agreement with a ruling given by R. Zera citing R. Hiyya b. Ashi who had it from Rab: If a woman after childbirth went down<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the seven or fourteen days of uncleanness following the birth of a male and a female respectively. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> to perform ritual immersion in order to pass out thereby from her period of uncleanness to that of cleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The period of thirty-three clean days after the seven, and the sixty-six clean days after the fourteen (cf. prev. n.). ');"><sup>48</sup></span> and some blood was detached from her body,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the vagina, where it remained for a day or two. ');"><sup>50</sup></span> while she was going down,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the mere passing of the seven or fourteen days does not restore the woman to cleanness unless immersion had been performed (cf. supra 35b). When the unclean blood (cf. next n.) is completely discharged from the body a second immersion is required since no cleanness had been attained by the first. ');"><sup>51</sup></span> she is unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While the blood is retained in the vagina, on account of her carriage of, or contact with the detached blood in it. ');"><sup>52</sup></span> but if it occurred while she was going up, she is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When, owing to the immersion, her clean period had already begun and the blood is clean. It has thus been shown that the Baraitha under discussion is in agreement with the first case, 'while she was going down, she is unclean' of R. Zera. ');"><sup>53</sup></span> Said R. Jeremiah to R. Zera: Why should she be unclean if this occurred 'while she was going down'? Is not the blood merely an absorbed uncleanness?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which (cf. Hul. 71a) cannot convey uncleanness either through contact or through carriage. Granted that a menstrual, or a zibah discharge causes a woman's uncleanness even while it is still absorbed in the vagina (as deduced supra from a Scriptural text), how can this blood, which is neither menstrual nor one of zibah and which (if it had come in external contact with the woman) could only have caused one day's uncleanness convey to the woman any uncleanness at all while still absorbed? ');"><sup>54</sup></span> — Go, the other replied, and ask it of R. Abin to whom I have explained the point at the schoolhouse and who nodded to me with his head.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a mark of approval. ');"><sup>55</sup></span> He went and asked him [the question], and the latter replied: This was treated like the carcass of a clean bird which<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it conveys no uncleanness to the garments of the man who comes in contact with it. ');"><sup>56</sup></span> conveys uncleanness to garments<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those of the man who eats of it. ');"><sup>57</sup></span> while it is still passing through the oesophagus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An 'absorbed uncleanness'. ');"><sup>58</sup></span> But are the two cases at all similar