Niddah

SHE MUST ALSO USE TESTING-RAGS WHEN SHE HAS MARITAL INTERCOURSE etc. We have learnt elsewhere: If a young girl, whose age of menstruation  had not yet arrived, married, Beth Shammai ruled: She is allowed  four nights,  and Beth Hillel ruled: Until the wound is healed.  R. Giddal citing Samuel stated: They  learnt this  only in the case where bleeding through intercourse had not ceased, though she subsequently observed a discharge that may not have been due to intercourse;  but if bleeding through intercourse had ceased  and then she observed a discharge  she  is unclean.  If one night has passed without intercourse and then she observed a discharge she is unclean. If the colour of her blood changed  she is unclean. R. Jonah raised an objection:  OR WHEN SHE IS A VIRGIN WHOSE BLOOD IS CLEAN [she need not use testing-rags]. But why should she not rather use testing-rags  seeing that it is possible that the colour of her blood had changed? — Raba replied, Read the first clause: EXCEPT WHERE SHE IS A MENSTRUANT OR IS CONTINUING IN THE BLOOD OF PURIFICATION, from which it follows that only in those cases no examination is required but that a virgin whose blood is clean does require one.  But, then, are not the two rulings  mutually contradictory? — The former  refers to one who had marital intercourse, where it might well be assumed that the membrum was the cause of the change;  while the latter  refers to one who had no marital intercourse.  So it was also taught: This  applies only in the case where 'bleeding through intercourse had not ceased, though she subsequently observed a discharge that may not have been due to intercourse, but if bleeding through intercourse had ceased and then she observed a discharge she is unclean. If one night has passed without intercourse and then she observed a discharge she is unclean. If the colour of her blood has changed she is unclean. TWICE [DAILY] MUST SHE etc. Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: They learnt this  only in respect of clean things, but to her husband she is permitted.  Is not this  obvious, seeing that we learnt, IN THE MORNING?  — Rather, if the statement  was at all made it was in connection with the final clause: AND  ALSO WHEN SHE IS ABOUT TO PERFORM HER MARITAL DUTY; Rab Judah citing Samuel stated, They learnt this only as regards a woman who was handling clean things, who, since it is necessary that she examine herself  for the sake of the clean things,  must also examine herself  for the sake of her husband, but if a woman was not handling clean things she requires no examination. But what new point does he  teach us, seeing that we have learnt: All women are in a condition of presumptive cleanness for their husbands?  — If the ruling were to be derived from the Mishnah  it might have been presumed that the ruling applied only to a woman who had a settled period but that a woman who had no settled period does require examination.  But does not our Mishnah  deal with one who has a settled period?  — Our Mishnah deals with both one who had a settled period, and one who had no settled period,  and it is this that was meant,  that although she had a settled period, since she must be examined for the sake of the clean things she handled she must also be examined for the sake of her husband. But did not Samuel state this  once, for R. Zera citing R. Abba b. Jeremiah who had it from Samuel stated, 'A woman who had no settled period may not perform marital intercourse before she has examined herself'  and it has been explained  to refer to one who was engaged in the handling of clean things?  — The one statement  was inferred from the other.  So it was also taught: This  applies only to clean things  but to her husband she is permitted.  This,  however, applies only where he left her in a state of presumptive cleanness, but if he left her in one of presumptive uncleanness she remains for ever in her uncleanness until she tells him, 'I am clean'.