Siman 186

According to Rashi, Tosafot, and several of the Rishonim, no woman requires an examination, neither before intercourse nor after intercourse, whether she has a fixed vest or does not have a fixed vest. Since she stands in her days of purity, not at a time close to her vest, she remains in her presumption of purity. All the examinations mentioned in the Gemara in Niddah at the end of the first chapter are only for taharot, because regarding taharot they established many safeguards. It is explicitly stated in the Gemara [12a] that for her husband she does not require an examination even if she does not have a fixed vest; on the contrary, they warned that she should not be stringent upon herself to examine so that the husband's heart will not smite him and he will abstain [ibid.]. Rashi explains there that this refers to an examination after intercourse, so that he will not abstain another time, and Tosafot explain it as referring to an examination before intercourse; see there. Even those coming from a journey, if they left their wives pure, they remain in their presumption of purity, and the details of the laws regarding this were explained in siman 184; see there. [Only the Baraita at the end of the first chapter, stating that a woman who does not have a fixed vest is forbidden to have intercourse and has no ketubah, etc., which is the view of Rabbi Meir, while Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says she may have intercourse with two witnesses, etc., and Shmuel ruled like Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus—and for taharot, see there. The Ran, of blessed memory, at the beginning of Shevuot, wondered that certainly Rabbi Meir spoke regarding her husband, for if it were because of taharot, there is no reason to hang such a collar upon her; if so, how could there be such a distant dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus? Therefore, he explained that Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus also deals with her husband, but Shmuel, who ruled like him, only ruled for taharot; see there, and the difficulty is evident. In my humble opinion, it seems it can be settled simply if we are precise about the wording "engaged in taharot," for it should have said, "In what case? If for taharot, etc.," as above [11b in the first version of Shmuel, see there]. However, the matter is thus: certainly the sages were only stringent regarding taharot and not for her husband, but a woman "engaged in taharot"—meaning that this is her occupation, that she profits from this and the like, and day and night she is engaged in taharot—therefore they were stringent upon her even for her husband. Therefore, on page 11b, the second version of Shmuel says there: It was only taught regarding a woman engaged in taharot, for since she requires examination for taharot, she also requires examination for her husband, see there, and he changed from the first version. Therefore, it also says regarding this dispute of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus: "In what case? If she is engaged in taharot, etc.," meaning that her occupation is in taharot and she does not wish to leave the occupation. Therefore, Rabbi Meir said she is forbidden to have intercourse and has no ketubah, etc., for Rabbi Meir holds that since for taharot she needs an examination after intercourse because there is a concern lest she saw blood, and since for taharot the law is so, automatically for her husband the law is also so. And since there is a concern lest she saw, how can she have intercourse regularly? This is not similar to where they required an examination for taharot, for that is when she performs taharot occasionally, in which case she truly does not need an examination for her husband as in the first version of Shmuel; but when she is "engaged," she also needs an examination for her husband, and automatically she has no ketubah, for he can say, "I do not want a wife engaged in taharot." And Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says she can have intercourse with two witnesses, one before intercourse and one after intercourse. According to this, it is simply settled; and delve into it.]

The Rambam, of blessed memory, in chapter 4 has another approach regarding all of this, and he holds that a woman who does not have a set vest needs an examination by law both before intercourse and after intercourse. And regarding the examination after intercourse, the man must also examine his cloth, and even a woman who has a set vest is obligated in the examinations after intercourse, and only before intercourse are they not obligated in an examination; nevertheless, the modest women examine themselves even before intercourse.

This is the wording of the Rambam there in law 14: It is the way of the daughters of Israel and the sons of Israel to always check after tashmish. How so? The man wipes himself with a cloth prepared for him, and the woman wipes herself with a cloth prepared for her, and they examine them lest she saw blood at the time of tashmish. And the man may allow his wife to check with his cloth, for since she is trusted regarding her own, she is trusted regarding his. These garments with which they wipe must be of worn, white linen, and they are called edim in this matter; the garment with which he wipes is called his ed, and the garment with which she wipes is called her ed. Modest women do not engage in tashmish until they check themselves before tashmish. And a woman who does not have a veset is forbidden from engaging in tashmish until she checks; therefore, she engages in tashmish with two edim, one before tashmish and one after tashmish. But a woman who has a veset does not require an ed before tashmish except for modesty alone. However, after tashmish, everyone requires two edim, one for him and one for her; even a pregnant woman, a nursing woman, an elderly woman, and a minor should not engage in tashmish except with two edim, one for him and one for her. But a virgin and one who sits upon the blood of purity do not require edim, for the blood is flowing from her. And one who engages in tashmish many times does not need to check their edim for each and every act; rather, he wipes with his ed and she with her ed after each and every act of the entire night, and on the morrow they shall check the edim. Thus far his words.

And behold, he has informed us of great stringencies that we have not heard from any of the Rishonim, and it is literally the opposite of the sugya of the Shas, which stated explicitly that regarding anything for her husband, she does not require a bedikah even if she does not have a veset, yet he required a bedikah after tashmish even if she has a veset, and also before tashmish if she is modest. The Ra'avad already challenged him, for we find in the Gemara there that Rav Yehuda prevented Rabbi Zera from a bedikah. Some resolve this by saying that the Rambam interprets this as referring to before tashmish, like the explanation of the Tosafot there, but after tashmish she requires a bedikah. Others resolve this further by saying that Rav Yehuda understood from the question of Rabbi Zera that his wife has a veset. I wonder at all of these, for even if it were according to their words, according to the Rambam even before tashmish and even when she has a veset, modest women perform a bedikah on themselves; if so, why did Rav Yehuda prevent Rabbi Zera from a bedikah? Is it not fitting for the wife of Rabbi Zera to conduct herself like the modest women? And should you say that Rav Yehuda told him only the strict law, it is impossible to say so, for after Rav Yehuda answered him that she should not perform a bedikah, Rabbi Zera asked him: "Let her perform a bedikah, and what of it?" and Rav Yehuda said to him: "If so, his heart will knock him and he will withdraw." See there. Thus, he did not allow him at all to conduct himself so.

And there is one who wishes to say that that which is explained in the Shas, that only for taharot is an examination required and not for her husband, this refers to an examination of holes and crevices according to the law of the examination for the separation of purity that will be explained in siman 196; and the examination required by the Rambam, the Rif, and Rabbeinu Chananel, as will be explained, is only an examination of wiping and not in depth [Chavat Da'at, subsection 1]. But it is impossible to say so, for behold, the Sages of blessed memory said explicitly [5a] regarding the matter of the examination before cohabitation for taharot that it is not an examination of holes and crevices, as they said there: "Since she is in a hurry for her husband, she does not insert into holes and crevices," see there. Furthermore, for behold, the Rambam calls this entire matter "examinations" and explains it as "wiping," and automatically it is so in the Gemara as well. Furthermore, if so, regarding several difficulties that it raises on this, it should have answered that here it deals with an examination of holes and crevices and here it deals with wiping. And there is one who wishes to separate that which they said "those who have no veset" into two categories: the first, that they have no fixed veset, meaning that their veset does not stand in one place; and the second, that they have not yet been established in their veset, having only begun to see once or twice. And with this, he desires to rescue our teachers from certain contradictions [Pardes Rimonim]. And this too is not so, for the words of the Rambam and all our teachers are clear in their speech to say "she has a veset" or "she has no veset," and so too in the Shas this is the language. And it is explained clearly that the intention of "she has no veset" is regarding one place, for she who has not established her veset yet is called "she does not yet have a veset" or "she has not established a veset," and is not called "a woman who has no veset" except by happenstance and not constantly. And it is superfluous to elaborate on this [and a proof for this is from the Commentary on the Mishnah of the Rambam at the end of the first chapter, who wrote, and this is his wording: And the principle for us is that for her husband, no, etc., and even a woman who has not established a veset for herself will not require an examination before cohabitation. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote this language and did not write "has no veset"].

The commentators did not trouble themselves to resolve his view, and in my humble opinion, his reasoning for requiring examinations after tashmish for all women, even those who have fixed vestot, appears to be from that which we learned in the Mishnah [14a]: It is the way of the daughters of Israel to use two cloths during tashmish, one for him and one for her, and the modest ones prepare a third to prepare the house. It is clear that this is not a legal requirement from the fact that the Tanna attributes it to the daughters of Israel. A proof for this is that in the Mishnah of the first chapter [11a] regarding matters of taharot, where she must examine herself morning and evening, etc., it says in the Gemara [4b]: The sages enacted for the daughters of Israel that they should examine themselves in the morning, etc. Therefore, since the Tanna here attributes it to the daughters of Israel, one may conclude that it is not a rabbinic enactment, but rather that the daughters of Israel took a stringency upon themselves. This is as it is stated in the Gemara, that the daughters of Israel took a stringency upon themselves that even if they see a drop of blood like a mustard seed, they sit for seven clean days, which is merely a stringency, and here too it is so. And this which they took as a stringency upon themselves is certainly not because of taharot, for there is no reason that the daughters of Israel would be concerned for this; rather, they took the stringency upon themselves for their husbands. And since all of them took this stringency, it follows that even those with fixed vestot are included. For this reason, the Tanna intentionally attributed it to the daughters of Israel, and therefore the Gemara did not cite this Mishnah anywhere regarding the matter of taharot.

And for this reason, the Rambam was precise in his pure wording, for in chapter 4 of Mishkav U'Moshav, law 7, regarding matters of purity, he wrote, and this is his wording: The sages ordained for the daughters of Israel that they should examine themselves morning and evening, etc. And here in chapter 4 of Issurei Biah, he wrote, and this is his wording: It is the way of the daughters of Israel and the sons of Israel to always examine after tashmish, etc. And that which Rav Yehuda prevented Rabbi Zera was regarding the examination before tashmish, and even though the modest women examine even before tashmish, the Rambam explains that this is the meaning: that he prevented Rabbi Zera so that he should not command his wife to act like the modest women, for this we did not learn in our Mishnah. And this is what he said to him: It is enough that you do not command her, and if she acts like the modest women, she shall act on her own and not by your command. And that which he said to him, "If so, his heart will knock him and he will withdraw," this is the meaning: since you command her, it will be like a complete law and his heart will knock him; but when she acts on her own, the heart will not knock because she is acting beyond the letter of the law, just as the heart does not knock from that which the daughters of Israel adopted the examinations after tashmish. [And the Maggid Mishneh wrote there in the name of the Ramban to distinguish according to his system between the examination immediately after tashmish, in which his heart knocks him, as opposed to after some time, see there; and he explains it regarding the examination after tashmish, and this is like the commentary of Rashi there, and the difficulty is evident; and we have explained according to the commentary of the Tosafot there, see there and examine it carefully].

And that which required examination by law before tashmish for one who does not have a veset, its reason is as our teacher Tam wrote in Sefer HaYashar siman 148, and we explained his intention there. For behold, we truly find in the sugya at the end of the first chapter two who spoke in the name of Shmuel: Rav Yehuda, and Rabbi Abba bar Rabbi Yirmiyah in the name of Shmuel. And from the words of Rabbi Abba it is explicit that he said even for one who does not have a veset, she does not require examination [see there page 12a, and since he did not say this etc.]. But Rav Yehuda said without qualification that when she is not occupied with taharot she does not require examination, and his intention was truly regarding one who has a veset. However, the Shas deliberated there [11b: according to the words of Rabbi Abba as is explained there, but at the end of the chapter in the Baraita of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus that is found there, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel that the halacha is like Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus, and the simple meaning of the Baraita refers to her husband, like the difficulty raised by the Ran which we cited in section 1; and also it is unlikely that he would rule the halacha for taharot, as this is a halacha for the Messianic era, as the Tosafot wrote there: only the Shas raised a difficulty from Rabbi Abba and derived "he who taught this did not teach that," and in all places when it says this phrasing there are three implications for the law, as our teacher Tam wrote in Sefer HaYashar there, and here too it is so; meaning that in truth Rav Yehuda disagrees with Rabbi Abba, and not like the Shas previously wanted to equate their words, and he ruled like Rav Yehuda as he is more the master of the teaching than Rabbi Abba bar Yirmiyah and was a preeminent student of Rav and Shmuel [and the Rambam explains according to the second explanation of Rashi, and as for the difficulty Rashi raised that Rav Yehuda himself forbade this above, according to what I wrote these are not the words of Rav Yehuda himself, rather the Shas wanted to equate his words to those of Rabbi Abba, and examine this carefully].

And behold, the Rosh, of blessed memory, brought at the end of the first chapter of Niddah the explanation of Rabbeinu Chananel in brief, and the essence of his words is that a woman who does not have a veset requires examination, and he questioned him, see there. And this is like the words of the Rambam, and we have already settled their words with the help of Heaven. However, he also brought there the explanation of the Rif, of blessed memory, and it is truly very puzzling, for the Rif wrote this baraita of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus in the eleventh chapter of Ketubot, and in Shevuot he wrote it in brief, see there. And he explained that Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus required a woman who does not have a veset to examine three times after tashmish, and if she sees blood she shall leave without a ketubah, and if she does not see blood, she is like all other women, see there. And the Rosh questioned that if so, what is the Gemara's difficulty from Shmuel? For Shmuel is dealing with examination before tashmish, and Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus is dealing with examination after tashmish. And there are many further questions, see there. And I have a further question, that if it is after tashmish, we have already learned this in a Mishnah, "it is the way of the daughters of Israel etc." and not three times. And the core of his words is puzzling, for from where does the Rif know to explain it as three times? [And the Shach in subsection 1 explains the Rif as dealing with one who sees blood due to tashmish, and the later authorities have already rejected his words. And also what he wrote, that the Rambam in the Commentary on the Mishnah wrote that a woman who does not have a veset does not require examination, see there—may my master forgive me, for it is not so in the words of the Rambam, but rather that she has not yet established a veset for herself, see there, and as I wrote at the end of section 5. And the Chavot Daat wants to distinguish between an examination of "holes and crevices" and a wiping, and the Pree Deah wants to distinguish between "does not have a veset" and "has not established a veset," for not all places are equal in this intent, and we have already rejected their words in section 5. And the main puzzle is how Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus did not explain, and especially Shmuel, for it is the way of an Amora to explain his words, that the examination is only three times. And what they wrote, that from the language "these are her remedies" we heard this, the forced nature of this is evident.]

Therefore, it appears to me in the intent of the Rif, of blessed memory, that it was obvious to him that because of the enactment of the sages who ordained to examine after intercourse, as we learned in the Mishnah: "The way of the daughters of Israel etc.," whether for taharot according to the method of Rashi [12a s.v. libo, and so wrote the Bartenura in chapter 2, mishnah 4, and the Tosafot Yom Tov there], or for her husband according to the method of the Rambam; and likewise the examination before intercourse for a woman who does not have a fixed vest, whether for taharot like Rashi or for her husband like the Rambam—because of this, there is no reason to say that Rabbi Meir would forbid her to her husband and she would lose her ketubah. On the contrary, it is always the enactment of the sages to be concerned for the benefit of women, and they were very concerned for their welfare, as is known throughout the Shas, and it is superfluous to elaborate on this. Rather, it is certainly so from the essential law of the Torah.

And for this reason, it was clear to the Rif, of blessed memory, that a woman who does not have a fixed veset is subject to two concerns. The first is by Torah law; since the majority of women have a fixed veset and this woman has no fixed pattern, it is obvious that the nature of this woman is to be affected by occurrences, and through this she sees blood, for the seeing of blood comes through being affected. Therefore, the sages were concerned that due to desire she sees blood, and the like. And how can she serve her husband all her days since she is prone to being affected? And it is obvious that tashmish is the greatest possible affection. Therefore we learned: one who sees blood due to tashmish. And this matter is known, that from the Torah, a chazakah is like a complete clarification; and it is also known that three times constitutes a chazakah. Therefore, it is obvious that if it is clarified three times, it is sufficient. And even when it is so clarified, nevertheless, by the enactment of the sages, she must check every time before tashmish and after tashmish. And Rabbi Meir holds that for this reason she is forbidden to her husband even by Torah law, for such a woman is not subject to the chazakah that she is likely to change, as there is no fixed pattern to being affected; for one time she will be affected by this and another time by another matter. And Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus holds that in order not to remove a woman from her husband, it is necessary to perform an examination three times and establish her upon her chazakah, and only by rabbinic law does she require checks.

Therefore, Rav Hanina bar Antigonos did not specify "three times" because, according to rabbinic law, she requires examinations always, both before tashmish and after tashmish. According to this, Shmuel, who said the halakha is like Rav Hanina bar Antigonos and does not say "three times," necessarily also holds that according to rabbinic law she always requires examinations; therefore, he did not specify "the halakha is like Rav Hanina bar Antigonos and she requires examinations three times." This is also understood, for according to rabbinic law there is no distinction between examinations before tashmish and examinations after tashmish. For it is well understood that according to the Torah, where the primary concern is due to her stimulation, it is appropriately relevant only after tashmish, for due to the stimulation of tashmish she saw blood; but before tashmish there is no stimulation here. And if it is due to known arousal, the concern of arousal is only with a new husband, as is explained in siman 192, and even this itself is only according to rabbinic law. But rabbinic concerns are always relevant, both before tashmish and after tashmish, since the concern is only because she does not have a veset, we do not know the time of her seeing and must be concerned at all times; if so, before tashmish is like after tashmish.

And with this we shall come to the explanation: R. Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel, the halakha follows R. Hanina ben Antigonus. And the Gemara asks: regarding what? If regarding taharot, behold you have already said Shmuel's view once. And if not regarding taharot, behold R. Abba said in the name of Shmuel that she does not need—meaning, since Shmuel said the halakha follows R. Hanina ben Antigonus and did not specify "three times," we learn from this that he teaches us two things: one, that the halakha does not follow R. Meir and he is not required to divorce her; and the second, that by rabbinic decree she requires examination. And for this it asks: If regarding taharot, behold Shmuel already said so, that for taharot she requires examination even for her husband, and automatically from this we knew that the halakha does not follow R. Meir, for according to R. Meir there is no examination here for the husband since he is obligated to divorce her. And if it is not regarding taharot—meaning that even when she is not occupied with taharot she requires examination for her husband, and therefore Shmuel did not specify "three times"—behold R. Abba said in the name of Shmuel that for her husband she does not require examination at all, and automatically even after tashmish she does not require it, for by rabbinic decree there is no distinction as we have explained. And that which we learned in the Mishnah, "the way of the daughters of Israel etc.," we shall say that this is not by law, but rather they conducted themselves so on their own, as we explained according to the method of the Rambam. And if so, it is difficult: why did Shmuel not say the halakha follows R. Hanina ben Antigonus regarding "three times"? And it answers: he who teaches this does not teach that—meaning, as the Rabbeinu Chananel explained, that Rav Yehuda disagrees with R. Abba and holds that even for her husband she requires examination, and therefore he did not specify "three times." And this is what the Rif concludes in his words: And if she used two witnesses three times, behold these are her remedies, and behold she is like all other women. Thus far his words. Meaning, "these are her remedies" that she is permitted to remain with her husband, and behold she is like all other women and enters only into the enactments of the sages, but she remains with her husband [and with this, all the difficulties that the Rishonim raised against him are removed; and examine this carefully].

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef: A woman who has a fixed vest is not required to perform a bedikah at all, neither before tashmish nor after tashmish; on the contrary, she should not perform a bedikah in the presence of her husband at the time of tashmish so that his heart does not knock him and he withdraws. The Rambam, of blessed memory, requires performing a bedikah after tashmish—she with one cloth and he with one cloth—to see through them if perhaps she saw blood at the time of tashmish; and in his opinion, the modest women perform a bedikah upon themselves even before tashmish. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And the first opinion is the primary one, and so they have practiced. Thus far his words. That is to say, they practiced according to the approach of Rashi and Tosafot, and not according to the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory.

And in my humble opinion, it appears that even according to the view of the Rambam, examinations are not necessary in our time. For even though according to the system of the Rambam, that which we learned, "the way of the daughters of Israel etc.," they instituted this of their own accord, and how is it possible to nullify it? This is no worse than what they practiced, to sit for seven clean days for a drop of blood like a mustard seed. For it can be said that specifically in the time of the Mishnah, when women practiced according to the law of the Torah, that immediately after the seven days of niddah they immersed, they rightly were concerned to examine because the fountain had not yet closed. But after they later instituted to sit seven clean days, they have surely examined themselves for seven days and found no blood, so how should we now be concerned for blood? And even to the time of the Rambam we are not similar, for since among us we begin the seven clean days after four or five days due to the concern of the discharge of semen, as is written in siman 196, and she now stands within the eleven days that follow her niddah, and these days are under the presumption of purity, as we learned [38:]: "All eleven days are under the presumption of purity," and it is not relevant to be concerned for blood. Therefore, our custom is well-settled according to the view of the Rambam as well, and it is clear with the help of Heaven.

He further wrote in section 2: If she does not have a fixed vest, the first three times they must examine before tashmish and after tashmish, he with his ed and she with her ed. And if she was established during those three times as one who does not see blood due to tashmish, she no longer requires an examination at all, neither before tashmish nor after tashmish. And according to the Rambam and the Rosh, as long as she does not have a vest, she always requires an examination before tashmish and after tashmish, and the Rambam requires that the husband also examine himself after tashmish. Thus far his words. And behold, the first three times is the opinion of the Rif, and he holds that the Rif maintains that after the three times she no longer requires any examinations, unlike what we explained regarding his opinion in section 13. And it is true that several of the poskim wrote thus as the opinion of the Rif in the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef. And I am greatly wondered, for Rabbeinu Chananel was the teacher of the Rif, and it is known in all the books of the Rif that when he disagrees with his teachers, he brings their words and rejects them; and why did he not mention here the opinion of his teachers? Rather, it is certainly as our words. And a proof for our words is from the words of the Mordechai, who wrote in Shevuot that the Rif holds like Rabbeinu Chananel that a woman who does not have a vest requires examination forever, see there. And the Beit Yosef in his great work rejected the Mordechai, see there. And according to what I wrote, it is well-settled. And also what they wrote regarding the opinion of the Rif, even examination before tashmish—behold, in his words it is not explained except after tashmish. And also according to what we explained that he holds thus, they are not related to one another, for this is from the Torah and this is rabbinic, as I wrote in section 13, see there. [And see Bach and Derisha, and according to what I wrote, everything is well-settled].

And know that regarding what all the poskim wrote concerning the examinations after tashmish, that two edim are required, one for him and another for her, this is from the language of the Mishnah [14a]. And in the Mishnah it is well-understood why each one requires a separate ed, because it is taught there: if it is found on his, they are tamei and liable for a korban, and regarding hers there is a distinction between if it was found immediately or found after a time; therefore, it is necessary that he have a separate ed. But for us, where there is no tumah and no korban, why is a separate ed required? Let them both wipe with one ed, and in any case, if blood is not found on the ed, it is good, and if not, one way or the other she is a niddah and must separate. However, it is possible to say that there is a practical difference: if they find [blood] three times on his ed, she will be forbidden to him forever, for she is established as one who sees [blood] due to tashmish. But with her ed, if she wipes after a while and not immediately after tashmish, it will not be clarified that she saw at the time of tashmish. Therefore, whatever can be clarified, we clarify, and a separate ed is required.

And that which our teacher, the Rema, wrote, that they do not need to examine themselves after each and every act of intercourse that they perform in one night, but rather they wipe themselves all night with a cloth and the next day they require an examination, and if he found blood she is impure, thus far his words; for it is explained from his words that two cloths are not required, but rather both of them wipe with one cloth. And this is from the words of the Rambam, and certainly this is so according to the essential law as I have written. Therefore, even though in the Rambam the wording is explained as "he with his cloth and she with her cloth" as I wrote in section 3, our teacher, the Rema, changed it intentionally to teach that this is not a necessity, as I wrote in the previous section.

He further wrote: If she wiped herself with a cloth and it was lost, she may not engage in relations until she examines herself, since she does not have a fixed vest. Thus far his words. And I am very much astonished, for certainly according to the approach of the Rambam and Rabbeinu Chananel, that by the letter of the law she is obligated in an examination when she does not have a fixed vest, it is well that she may not engage in relations. However, since he decided in section 1 according to the approach of Rashi and Tosafot, and they are of the opinion that even when she does not have a fixed vest she does not require an examination, if so, why should we be stringent upon her? And it must be said that he only decided according to the approach of Rashi and Tosafot regarding one who has a fixed vest, and not like the Rambam; but regarding one who does not have a fixed vest, he was concerned for the opinion of Rabbeinu Chananel, just as the Rosh was concerned for his words even though from the essence of the sugya it did not appear so to him, as he wrote at the end of the first chapter, see there. And it is obvious that a pregnant woman and a nursing woman do not require an examination even when they do not have a fixed vest.

A woman who is accustomed to see in a manner that for fourteen days after her immersion she never sees, and afterwards she has no fixed veset—sometimes on the fifteenth and sometimes on the second [of the month] and the like—nevertheless, during these fourteen days she is considered as one who has a veset. Therefore, even according to those who hold that one who has no veset requires a bedikah for her husband, nevertheless, until fourteen days she does not require a bedikah [see the Chavat Da'at who hesitated regarding this law from a woman who does not see until after thirty days, that she should not be concerned for the onah beinonit; but it is not so, as the Shach wrote in siman 189, subsection 30, it is not a comparable case, for there most women have an onah beinonit and here it is the opposite; and he further elaborated in subsection 3, and there is in all his words no reason to reject this law, see there].

A person may allow his wife to examine with his cloth, and we have already explained this in section 3. And if she saw blood due to tashmish three consecutive times, she is forbidden to her husband until she examines herself, as will be explained in siman 187 with the help of Heaven.