Niddah — Daf 5a

וברייתא דברי הכל

ולוקמא איפכא

כיון דאיכא לאוקומי לקולא ולחומרא לחומרא מוקמינן

קתני שאם תראה שלא בשעת וסתה מטמאה מעת לעת טעמא דאשה שיש לה וסת הוא דפליגי רבנן בין כתמה לראייתה

הא שאר נשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן כראייתן

מני רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס היא דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משום רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס כל הנשים כתמן טמא למפרע ונשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן כראייתן חוץ מתינוקת שלא הגיע זמנה לראות שאפילו סדינין שלה מלוכלכין בדם אין חוששין לה

ומי אית ליה לרבי חנינא כתם כלל והתניא כל הנשים כתמן טמא ונשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן טמא ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר נשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן אין להן כתם מאי לאו אין להן כתם כלל לא אין להן כתם למפרע אבל יש להן כתם מכאן ולהבא

מכלל דתנא קמא סבר אפי' למפרע אין ר"מ היא דמחמיר גבי כתמים דתניא כל הנשים כתמן טמא למפרע ונשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן טמא למפרע דר"מ

רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר נשים שאמרו חכמים דיין שעתן כתמן כראייתן ותינוקת שהגיע זמנה לראות יש לה כתם ושלא הגיע זמנה לראות אין לה כתם ואימתי הגיע זמנה לראות משהגיעו ימי הנעורים

והמשמשת בעדים כו' אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל עד שלפני תשמיש אינו ממעט כפקידה

מ"ט אמר רב קטינא מתוך שמהומה לביתה וכי מהומה לביתה מאי הוי מתוך שמהומה לביתה אינה מכנסת לחורין ולסדקין

תנן המשמשת בעדים הרי זו כפקידה מאי לאו חד לפני תשמיש וחד לאחר תשמיש לא אידי ואידי לאחר תשמיש ואחד לו ואחד לה כדתנן דרך בנות ישראל משמשות בשני עדים אחד לו ואחד לה

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא חד לפני תשמיש וחד לאחר תשמיש איצטריך סד"א מתוך שמהומה לביתה לא בדקה שפיר קמ"ל הרי זו כפקידה אלא אי אמרת אידי ואידי לאחר תשמיש פשיטא

מהו דתימא שמא תראה טפת דם כחרדל ותחפנה שכבת זרע קמ"ל

ואיבעית אימא שתי בדיקות אצרכוה רבנן חד לפני תשמיש וחד לאחר תשמיש וכי קתני הרי זו כפקיד' אלאחר תשמיש והא המשמשת קתני תני ומשמשת

ממעטת על יד מעת לעת השתא מעת לעת ממעטת

Now it was just taught,  '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' — [If this  is] the reason  [it follows] that only in the case of a woman who has a settled period do the Rabbis draw a distinction between her stain and her observation  [of a flow],  but in the case of the other women  concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow  [the extent of the uncleanness of] their stains is like that of their observation of a flow.  Now whose view is this? — It is that of R. Hanina b. Antigonus; for Rab Judah citing Samuel who had it from R. Hanina b. Antigonus stated, In the case of all women their stains cause uncleanness retrospectively but in that of the women  concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow [the extent of the uncleanness of] their stains is like that of their observation of a flow,  the exception being a child who has not yet attained the age of the suffering of a flow of whom, though her sheets are soiled with blood,  no notice is to be taken.  But does R. Hanina at all uphold  the law of the uncleanness of a stain?  Was it not taught: In the case of all women their stains are unclean and also in the case of the women concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their period of uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow their stains are unclean; while R. Hanina b. Antigonus ruled, The women concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow are not subject to the law of uncleanness of the stain? Now does not this mean that they are not subject at all to the law of uncleanness of the stain?  — No, it means that they are not subject to the law of the uncleanness of the stain retrospectively but they are well subject to it from now  onwards. Does this  then imply that the first Tanna  is of the opinion that their uncleanness is even retrospective? — Yes; it  being the view of R. Meir who restricts the law in respect of stains. For it was taught: In the case of all women their stains are unclean retrospectively and also in the case of the women concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their period of uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow their stains are unclean retrospectively; so R. Meir. R. Hanina b. Antigonus ruled, In the case of the women concerning whom the Sages ruled that it sufficed for them to reckon their period of uncleanness from the time they discovered the flow [the uncleanness of] their stains is like that of their observation [of their flow]; and a child who has attained the age of suffering a flow is subject to the law of the uncleanness of the stain while one who has not attained that age is not subject to the uncleanness of a stain, and when does she attain the age of suffering a flow? When she attains her maidenhood. AND IF A WOMAN USES TESTING-RAGS WHEN SHE HAS MARITAL INTERCOURSE etc. Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: A testing-rag used before  marital intercourse does not reduce [the doubtful period  of retrospective uncleanness] as an examination. What is the reason? — R. Kattina replied: Because the woman is in a hurry to do her marital duty.  But what matters it even if she is in a hurry to do her marital duty? — Since she is in a hurry to do it she does not insert the testing-rag into depressions and folds. We learnt: IF A WOMAN USES TESTING-RAGS WHEN SHE HAS MARITAL INTERCOURSE, THIS IS INDEED LIKE AN EXAMINATION. Does not this mean that she uses one before intercourse and one after it?  — No, the one as well as the other is used after intercourse but  one is for the man  and the other is for her; as we learnt: It is the custom of the daughters of Israel when having marital intercourse to use two testing-rags, one for the man and the other for herself.  What a comparison!  If you concede that one is used before intercourse and the other after it one can well understand the necessity for the ruling.  As it might have been presumed that on account of her being in a hurry to do her marital duty she does not properly perform her test we were informed that THIS IS INDEED LIKE AN EXAMINATION. If you maintain, however, that the one testing-rag as well as the other is used after marital intercourse, is not the ruling obvious?  — It might have been presumed [that the test should be ineffective]  on account of the possibility of the appearance of a drop of blood of the size of a mustard seed  which semen might cover up,  hence we were informed [that such a remote possibility need not be considered]. And if you prefer I might reply: The Rabbis required a woman to perform two tests, one before intercourse and one after it,  and in stating 'THIS IS INDEED LIKE AN EXAMINATION' the reference is to the one after the intercourse. But was it not stated, IF A WOMAN USES etc.?  — Read: And a woman shall use. LESSENS EITHER THE PERIOD OF THE PAST TWENTY-FOUR HOURS. Now that you stated that it  lessens THE PERIOD OF THE PAST TWENTY-FOUR HOURS