Talmud zu Divrej Hajamim I 4:38

Mishnah²¹⁶Quote from Mishnah 6. The entire paragraph is repeated in Chapter 6, on Mishnah 3.: “Similarly, the male sufferer from gonorrhea should not eat with a female sufferer from flux.” It was stated²⁶⁰Babli 13a, Tosephta 1:14.: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, look how far purity did spread, as it is said²⁶¹Gen. 30:30., for the little which you had expanded mightily; ²⁶²1Chr. 4:38. The implication is that in both cases the increase was the reward of exact observation of the rules of purity.and their families expanded mightily. They did not decide to say, the pure may not eat with the impure²⁶³From the parallels it is clear that one should not read “the pure may not eat with the impure (m.)” but “the pure may not eat with the impure (f.)”, i. e., a husband may not eat with his wife during her menstrual impurity. They did not have to spell this out because people by themselves followed this rule., but they said, the male sufferer from gonorrhea should not eat with a female sufferer from flux²⁶⁴As an example of the general rule that a male may not eat with a woman with whom he could not sleep.; therefore the male sufferer from gonorrhea with a female sufferer from skin disease is permitted²⁶⁵Since a female sufferer from skin disease is not restricted in her sexual activity as will be shown in the next sentence.. He shall dwell outside his tent²⁶⁶Lev. 14:8. The “tent” is an euphemism for the wife with whom he sleeps, as in Deut. 5:27, where Moses reports that he was commanded by God to tell the people “to return to their tents” after the epiphany of Sinai where they had been forbidden intercourse for three days prior (Ex. 19:15), except for Moses who was commanded “to stay with Me” (Deut. 5:28).
The use of the masculine suffix, his tent, is interpreted to exclude the female from restriction of sexual activity. The verse refers to the healed sufferer from skin disease in the process of his purification. There is a dispute whether the prohibition of sexual relations extends to the time of actual sickness. The Babylonian sources [Keritut 8b, also Moˋed qatan 7a; Sifra Mesoraˋ Parashah 2(11)] are unanimous that the prohibition does not extend. This also seems to be implied by Mishnah Negaˋim 14:2. But the text here implies that any male sufferer from skin disease is forbidden sexual relations (which in Sifra is labelled as opinion of R. Yose ben R. Jehudah.) but not outside her tent. A male sufferer from skin disease with a female sufferer from flux is forbidden; a male sufferer from skin disease with a female sufferer from skin disease is forbidden²⁶⁷Since the prohibitions only depend on the status of the male..