Niddah

IF, HOWEVER, SHE SUFFERED THE FIRST FLOW etc. R. Huna ruled: If on three occasions she jumped and suffered a flow she  has thereby established for herself a fixed period.  In what respect?  If it be suggested, In respect of certain days,  could it not be objected that on any day on which she did not jump she observed no flow?  — Rather, [the fixation meant is in respect] of jumps.  But surely it was taught: 'Any regular discharge established as a result of an accident, even though it had been repeated many times, does not establish a fixed period'. Does not this mean that no fixed period whatsoever  is established? — No, it means that no fixed period is established in respect of days alone  or jumps alone,  but as regards days and jumps jointly  a fixed period is well established.  But 'is it not obvious  [that no fixed period can be established] in respect of days alone?  — R. Ashi replied: [This  was necessary in a case] for instance, where the woman jumped on two Sundays and suffered a flow while on a Sabbath  she jumped and suffered no flow but on the Sunday following she observed one without jumping. As it might have been presumed that it had now become known retrospectively that  it was the day  and not the jumping  that had caused the flow,  we were informed  that it was the jump of the previous day  'that was the cause  and that the reason why the woman did not observe it was because the jump was premature. Another reading:  R. Huna' ruled: If on three occasions she jumped and suffered a flow she has thereby established for herself a fixed period in respect of days but not in respect of jumps. In what circumstances?  — R. Ashi replied: If a woman jumped on two Sundays and on each occasion suffered a flow while  on one  Sunday she suffered one without jumping where it is obvious that it is the day  that is the cause. MISHNAH. ALTHOUGH [THE SAGES] HAVE LAID DOWN THAT [FOR A WOMAN WHO HAS A SETTLED PERIOD] IT SUFFICES TO RECKON HER PERIOD OF UNCLEANNESS FROM THE TIME SHE OBSERVED THE FLOW, SHE MUST NEVERTHELESS EXAMINE HERSELF [REGULARLY],  EXCEPT WHERE SHE IS A MENSTRUANT  OR  IS CONTINUING IN THE BLOOD OF PURIFICATION.  SHE  MUST ALSO USE TESTING-RAGS WHEN  SHE HAS MARITAL INTERCOURSE EXCEPT WHEN SHE CONTINUES IN THE BLOOD OF PURIFICATION  OR WHEN SHE IS A VIRGIN  WHOSE BLOOD IS CLEAN.  AND TWICE [DAILY] MUST SHE  EXAMINE HERSELF: IN THE MORNING  AND AT THE [EVENING] TWILIGHT,  AND ALSO WHEN SHE IS ABOUT  TO PERFORM HER MARITAL DUTY.  PRIESTLY WOMEN ARE SUBJECT TO AN ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION [IN HAVING TO MAKE EXAMINATION] WHEN THEY ARE ABOUT TO EAT TERUMAH. R. JUDAH RULED: [THESE MUST EXAMINE THEMSELVES] ALSO AFTER THEY HAVE CONCLUDED A MEAL  OF TERUMAH. GEMARA. EXCEPT WHEN SHE IS A MENSTRUANT, because during the days of her menstruation she needs no examination.  This  is quite satisfactory according to R. Simeon b. Lakish who ruled, 'A woman may establish for herself a settled period during the days of her zibah  but not during the days of her menstruation',  [since the discarding of an examination would be] well justified.  According to R. Johanan, however, who ruled, 'A woman may establish for herself a settled period during the days of her menstruation', why should she not examine herself seeing that it is possible that she had established for herself a settled period?  — R. Johanan can answer you: I only spoke of a case where the woman observed the flow issuing  from a previously closed source,  but I did not speak of one where she observed it issuing  from an already open source. OR IS CONTINUING IN THE BLOOD OF PURIFICATION. It was assumed that the reference is to one who is only desirous of continuing in the blood of purification.  Now this  is quite satisfactory according to Rab who holds that 'it  all emanates from the same source which the Torah declared to be unclean [during a certain period]  and clean [during another period]'  [since the discarding of an examination would be] well justified;  but according to Levi who holds that 'it  emanates from two different sources'  why should she not examine herself, seeing that it is possible  that the unclean source had not yet ceased to flow?  — Levi can answer you: This  is in agreement with