Niddah

R. Kahana stated, 'I asked the women folk of the house of R. Papa and of R. Huna son of R. Joshua, "Do the Rabbis on coming home from the schoolhouse require you to undergo an examination"? And they answered me in the negative'. But why did he  not ask  the Rabbis themselves? — Because it is possible that they imposed additional restrictions upon themselves. Our Rabbis taught: A woman who has no settled period is forbidden marital intercourse and is entitled neither to a kethubah  nor to a usufruct  nor to maintenance,  nor to her worn-out clothes.  Her husband, furthermore, must divorce her and may never marry her again; so R. Meir. R. Hanina b. Antigonus ruled: She must use two testing-rags when she has marital intercourse; they render her unfit  and they also render her fit.  In the name of Abba Hanan it was stated: Woe to her husband.  'She is forbidden marital intercourse', because she might  cause him moral injury. 'And is entitled neither to a kethubah', since she is unfit for cohabitation she is not entitled to a kethubah. 'Nor to usufruct nor to maintenance nor to her worn-out clothes' because the provisions  embodied in the agreed terms of a kethubah are subject to the same laws as the kethubah itself.  'Her husband, furthermore, must divorce her and may never marry her again'. Is not this obvious?  — It was necessary in the case where she was subsequently cured.  As it might have been presumed that [in such a case] he may remarry her we were informed [that this is forbidden], because it may sometimes happen that having proceeded to marry another man she would be cured and [her first husband] would then say, 'Had I known that to be the case I would not have divorced her even if you had given me a hundred maneh', and the get would thus be annulled and her children would be bastards. 'In the name of Abba Hanan it was stated: Woe to her husband'. Some explain: He said this in opposition to R. Meir,  because [Abba Hanan maintains that] she must be allowed to collect her kethubah. Others there are who explain: He said it in opposition to R. Hanina b. Antigonus,  because [Abba Hanan maintains that intercourse is always forbidden] since thereby she might  cause her husband to sin. Rab Judah citing Samuel stated: The halachah is in agreement with R. Hanina b. Antigonus. But in what case? If it is one where the woman is engaged in the handling of clean things, has not Samuel [it may be objected] said it once?  And if it is one where she was not engaged in the handling of clean things, did he not say [it may again be objected] that as far as her husband is concerned she requires no examination, for did not R. Zera in fact state in the name of R. Abba b. Jeremiah who had it from Samuel, 'A woman who had no settled period may not perform marital intercourse before she examines herself', and it has been explained to refer to one who was engaged in the handling of clean things?  — He who taught the one did not teach the other.