Niddah

R. Simeon b. Yohai stated, There are five things which [cause the man] who does them to forfeit his life and his blood is upon his own head: Eating  peeled garlic, a peeled onion or a peeled egg, or drinking diluted liquids that  were kept over night; spending a night in a graveyard; removing one's nails and throwing them away in a public thoroughfare; and blood-letting followed immediately by intercourse. 'Eating peeled garlic etc.' Even though they are deposited in a basket and tied up and sealed, an evil spirit rests upon them. This, however, has been said only where their roots or peel did not remain  with them, but if their roots or peel remained with them there can be no objection. 'And drinking diluted liquids that were kept over night'. Rab Judah citing Samuel explained: This applies only where they were kept over night in a metal vessel. R. Papa stated: Vessels made of alum crystals are the same in this respect as vessels made of metal. So also said R. Johanan: This applies only where they were kept in a metal vessel; and vessels made of alum crystals are the same in this respect as vessels made of metal. 'Removing one's nails and throwing them away in a public thoroughfare'. [This is dangerous] because a pregnant woman passing over them would miscarry. This, however, has been said only of a case where one removes them with a pair of scissors. Furthermore, this has been said only of a case where one removes the nails of both hands and feet. Furthermore, this has been said only in the case where one did not cut anything immediately after cutting them but if something was cut immediately after they were cut there can be no danger.  This, however, is not [to be relied upon]. One should be on his guard in all the cases mentioned. Our Rabbis taught: Three things have been said about the disposal of nails: He who burns them is a pious man, he who buries them is a righteous man, and he who throws them away is a wicked man. 'And blood-letting followed immediately by intercourse'. [This should be avoided] because a Master said: If a man has intercourse immediately after being bled, he will have feeble  children; and if intercourse took place after both husband and wife have been bled, they will have children afflicted with ra'athan.  Rab  stated: This has been said only in the case where nothing was tasted after the bleeding but if something was tasted after it there can be no harm. R. Hisda ruled: A man is forbidden to perform his marital duty in the day-time, for it is said, But thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  But what is the proof? — Abaye replied: He might observe something repulsive in her and she would thereby become loathsome to him. R. Huna said, Israel are holy and do not perform their marital duties in the day-time. Raba said, But in  a dark house this is permitted; and a scholar  may darken a room with his cloak and perform his marital duty. [But] we have learnt, OR SHE MUST PERFORM IT IN THE LIGHT OF A LAMP? — Read: SHE MUST examine IT IN THE LIGHT OF A LAMP. Come and hear: Although [the Sages] have said, He who has intercourse in the light of a lamp is loathsome [etc.]?  — Read: He who examines his bed  in the light of a lamp is loathsome. Come and hear: And the people of the house of Monobaz  did three things, and on account of these they were honourably mentioned: They performed their marital duties in the day-time, they examined their beds with cotton,  and they observed the rules of uncleanness and cleanness in the case of snow. At all events, was it not here stated, 'They performed their marital duties in the day-time'? Read: They examined their beds in the day-time. This may also be supported by logical argument. For if one were to imagine [that the reading is] 'performed their marital duties', would they have been 'honourably mentioned'? — Yes, indeed;  because owing to the prevalence  of sleep  she is likely to become repulsive to him. 'They examined their beds with cotton.' This provides support for a ruling of Samuel. For Samuel ruled: The bed  may be examined only with cotton tufts or with clean and soft wool. Rab observed: This explains what they said in Palestine  on Sabbath eves,  when I was there, 'Who requires cotton tufts for his bread',  and I did not understand at the time what they meant. Raba stated: Old flax garments are admirably suited for examination purposes. But can this be correct,  seeing that the school of Manasseh taught: The bed  may not be examined either with a red rag or with a black one or with flax,  but only with cotton tufts or with clean and soft wool?  This is no difficulty, since the latter refers to flax while the former refers to garments of flax. And if you prefer I might reply: Both refer to garments of flax but the latter deals with new ones while the former deals with old ones. 'They observed the rules of uncleanness and cleanness in the case of snow.' We learnt elsewhere: Snow is neither a food nor a drink. Though one intended to use it as food it is not subject to the laws of the uncleanness of foodstuffs,  [but if one intended to use it] as a drink it is subject to the laws of the uncleanness of drinks. If a part of it contracted uncleanness all of it does not become unclean,  but if a part of it became clean  all of it becomes clean. Now is not this self contradictory? You first said, 'If a part of it contracted uncleanness all of it does not become unclean', and then you said, 'If a part of it became clean all of it becomes clean', which implies, does it not, that all of it was previously unclean?  — Abaye replied: This is a case, for instance, where it  was carried across the air-space of an oven,  [in which case all the snow is unclean] because the Torah testified concerning an earthen vessel  that