QUESTION: The Beraisa says that three months without blood are necessary for a nursing woman to be considered Mesulekes Damim. The Gemara asks why three full months are necessary for a nursing woman to be considered Mesulekes Damim according to Levi, who maintains that Dam Tahor and Dam Tamei come from different sources. According to Levi, even a moment without blood after Yemei Tum'ah should suffice for the source of Dam Tamei to cease discharging blood, and the source of Dam Tohar to open, and thus blood seen during Yemei Tohar should not be considered Dam Nidah!

Why does the Gemara assume with certainty that one of the Onos that the woman must miss in order to be considered Mesulekes Damim will occur during the Yemei Tohar? Perhaps the Beraisa is discussing a woman who has an unusually long Onah, which is longer than all of her Yemei Tohar, and thus the Yemei Tohar do not help her become Mesulekes Damim sooner!

(a) The ARUCH LA'NER (10b) suggests that the Beraisa means that a woman is Mesulekes Damim if she misses three Onah Beinonis (30-day) periods. One such Onah obviously must occur during the Yemei Tohar period, which is longer than 30 days.

(b) The MAHARSHA earlier (10b) asserts that in the case of a woman whose Onah is longer than 30 days, three such Onos must pass before she is considered Mesulekes Damim. The CHOCHMAS BETZALEL explains that according to the Maharsha, the Gemara's question is that the Beraisa implies that every woman, even one with a shorter Veses, must not see blood during the Yemei Tohar. The Gemara asks that if the woman's Veses occurs during Yemei Tohar, then seeing blood at that time should not detract from the count of days towards becoming Mesulekes Damim.

OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that when a woman sees blood during labor, she does not become a Zavah unless her labor stops for 24 hours between the bleeding and the birth. The Gemara quotes Chananya, the nephew of Rebbi Yehoshua, who says that "if the woman was in labor on the third day of bleeding, even if she has no labor pains the entire [rest of the] day, she is not a Zavah." In what respect does Chananya disagree with the Mishnah?

(a) RASHI (DH Ha Ka Mashma Lan) understands that Chananya concurs with the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua in the Mishnah. The cessation of labor makes a woman a Zavah only when she ceases labor from sunset to sunset, and not when she merely has a 24-hour pause in her labor.

(b) Rashi's explanation, however, is difficult to reconcile with Chananya's wording, because his wording is not similar at all to that of Rebbi Yehoshua in the Mishnah. Moreover, the Gemara seems to present his opinion as an independent view that is not mentioned in the Mishnah.

The other Rishonim, including the RAMBAN, RASHBA, and RITVA, therefore explain that Chananya is teaching an entirely different Halachah. According to Chananya, a one-day cessation of labor indeed makes a woman a Zavah Ketanah when it follows one or two days of bleeding. However, after a woman bleeds with labor pains for even one minute of the third day, a one-day cessation of labor no longer makes her a Zavah. She will not become a Zavah Gedolah unless she continues to bleed without any labor pains for another three consecutive days. The Rishonim explain that this is also Rashi's intention, as implied by his words earlier (36b, DH Kol; see ARUCH LA'NER who justifies their approach).

(c) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 6:4, as explained by the CHASAM SOFER and ARUCH LA'NER) explains that according to Chananya, a painless birth is the same as labor pains that precede a birth. That is, if a woman had labor pains during the first two days of bleeding and gave birth -- painlessly -- on the third day of bleeding, the birth is equivalent to labor pains and the woman is Tehorah. This is what Chananya means when he refers to a woman "who experiences labor on the third day, even though she has no pains on the third day." Giving birth is the type of labor that does not involve labor pains.

OPINIONS: Rav ruled that a woman who sees blood while in labor during Yemei Zivah is not considered a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom, even though she is Tamei on that day. Shila bar Avina ruled in accordance with Rav. When Rav was dying, he told Rav Asi (regarding Shila's ruling) to "go, Tzan'ei, and if he does not listen, then Garyei." Rav Asi thought that Rav told him to "Gadyei." After Rav died, Rav Asi conveyed the message that Rav retracted his ruling in the matter and that Shila should also retract his ruling. Shila Bar Avina did not accept Rav Asi's testimony and said that if Rav had retracted, then he would have informed Shila directly. A hostile dialogue between Shila bar Avina and Rav Asi ensued.

To understand the Gemara better, we need to define the key words that led to the misunderstanding, "Tzan'ei," "Garyei," and "Gadyei." We also need to understand what exactly Rav retracted; did he become more lenient or more stringent?

(a) RASHI (DH Tzan'ei, DH Garyei, and DH Gadyei) explains that Rav told Rav Asi to conceal ("Tzan'ei") the ruling that he had said, because Rav retracted his opinion and now maintained that the woman is entirely Tahor. Rav told Rav Asi that if Shila does not accept this information, then Rav Asi should draw him ("Garyei") to his reasoning by using logical arguments and proofs to convince him to retract his ruling. However, Rav Asi mistakenly thought Rav had said "Gadyei," excommunicate Shila if he would not listen. Rav Asi carried out what he mistakenly thought was Rav's will, and this led to the serious argument between Shila and Rav Asi. (See also TOSFOS DH Gadyei.)

(b) The RAMBAN and RAN explain that Rav retracted his opinion and now ruled stringently, like Shmuel, that the woman should be considered a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom (that is, she could possibly become a Zavah). The Ramban and Ran argue with Rashi's explanation because it is not logical that Rav Asi would put Shila in Cherem for being too stringent.

The CHOCHMAS BETZALEL defends Rashi's explanation. Since Shila's ruling made a woman forbidden to her husband, Rav Asi maintained that it was fitting to put him in Cherem. Unnecessarily causing a woman to be forbidden to her husband is considered a very severe matter (as we find in Shabbos 55b with regard to Chofni and Pinchas, the sons of Eli ha'Kohen; also, the Gemara in Berachos (4a) relates that David ha'Melech said that he became soiled examining the Shefir and Shilya of women in order to permit the women to their husbands; see also Eruvin 63a regarding Yehoshua's punishment).

The MAHARSHA sides with Rashi. He points out that the term "Garyei," draw him towards you with logical arguments and proofs, connotes drawing towards a stance of leniency rather than a stance of stringency. (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Gemara relates that after Rav Asi put Shila bar Avina in Cherem, Shila sent Rav Asi a message, "Is the master not afraid of the fire [of a Chacham]?" Rav Asi replied, "I am Isi ben Yehudah, who is Isi ben Gur Aryeh, who is Isi ben Gamliel, who is Isi ben Mehalalel, the mortar made of brass that does not corrode."

Why did Rav Asi mention all of these names?

ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH Isi) explains that these were all names of Rav Asi, as the Gemara in Pesachim (113b) explicitly states. The MAHARSHA adds that these different names were given to his father because of his various outstanding attributes.

The BEN YEHOYADA explains that his real name was the first name mentioned, Isi ben Yehudah. He was also called "Gur Aryeh" because that title describes one who is very knowledgeable in Torah, as Reish Lakish described Rav Kahana when he said that "a lion (Aryeh) is coming up from Bavel." The name "Gamliel" was given to his father because of his involvement in Gemilus Chasadim. He was called "Mehalalel" (one who praises Hash-m) due to the perfection he achieved in prayer. Rav Asi was saying that the merit of his father would protect him from the fire of a Chacham like Shila. (Y. MONTROSE)