1)

(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns that unless the bloodstain can be divided into three G'risin, we do not suspect that perhaps she is a Zavah. Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra in the name of Rebbi Yossi maintains that - either way, we suspect that stains may have come either during two periods or one period of Bein-ha'Shemashos (dusk), which has the Din of two Re'iyos.

(b)Rebbi agrees with ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra - where she did not examine herself.

2. ... the Chachamim - where she did (which we will now explain in detail).

(c)The Rabbanan de'bei Rav explained to Rava that - she examined herself but not her clothes.

2)

(a)To explain the Machlokes between the Chachamim and Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra, the Rabbanan (of Rava) establish the case where she examined herself during the Bein-ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah - which lasts from Sheki'ah (sunset, the half-Mil [see Gilyon ha'Shas]) walking time between Sheki'ah and nightfall, but not of Rebbi Yossi - which takes place a split second later.

(b)Consequently, according to the Rabbanan - even if the bloodstain came the second following their Bein-ha'Shemashos, she would not be a Zavah, seeing as it was after nightfall, and it is only considered as one sighting. Whereas Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra, who is quoting Rebbi Yossi - is afraid that the bloodstain appeared during that second, which he considers a Safek, and which is therefore considered two sightings.

(c)Rava objected that this would be acceptable if she did not interrupt the Bedikah during the entire Bein- ha'Shemashos. But failing that, even the Rabbanan must surely agree that the bloodstain may have occurred during Bein-ha'Shemashos (in which case she ought to be a Zavah) ...

(d)... to which they replied that - the Machlokes does indeed speak in a case where she did not interrupt the Bedikah throughout Bein-ha'Shemashos.

3)

(a)When Rebbi agreed with Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra by Lo Badkah, he could not have meant that she did not examine herself during the Bein-ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yossi (but that she did examine herself during that of Rebbi Yehudah, like the Rabbanan explained to Rava) - because that would mean that Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra considers her a Zavah even though she was Bodek during both (which is inconceivable).

(b)So he must be referring to - where she made no Bedikah at all, but if she had made a Bedikah during the Bein- ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah - she would not be a Zavah (Lo Chaishinan) ...

(c)... because he classifies the Bein- ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yossi as nighttime, as we just explained.

4)

(a)When Rebbi then agrees with the Rabbanan by Badkah, he cannot mean that she was Bodek herself during the Bein-ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah, but not during that of Rebbi Yossi) - because that would mean that the Rabbanan do not consider her a Zavah even though she was not Bodek herself at all, which is inconceivable (since the bloodstain may have occurred during Bein- ha'Shemashos, as we explained).

(b)So he must be referring to - where she was Bodek herself during both Bein- ha'Shemashos ...

(c)... but had she been Bodek by the Bein- ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah only - she would be a Zavah (Chaishinan), since he would then classify the Bein- ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yossi as a Safek ...

(d)... leaving us with a discrepancy in Rebbi's opinion of Rebbi Yossi's Bein-ha'Shemashos.

5)

(a)Consequently, when Rebbi said 'Nir'in Divrei Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra be'she'Lo Badkah', he was not stating his own opinion, but that - in a case where she was not Bodek at all, the Rabbanan will concede to Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra ('Nir'in Divrei Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra le'Rabbanan'), since they only argue with him there where she at least made a Bedikah during the Bein-ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah.

(b)We query this however, from another Beraisa, which cites the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra in the name of Rebbi Yossi, who declares a woman who sees bloodstains of three G'risin plus - a Zavah, but one who sees less than that - Tahor from Zivus.

(c)Rebbi comments on this that - he had heard from Rebbi Yossi that both are Zavos ...

(d)... because without Bedikah at the end of the day (after Minchah), like a Nidah, she will remain Tamei throughout the day, even though she examined herself in the morning and was Tahor.

6)

(a)According to Rebbi, Rebbi Yossi concedes to Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra - there where she was Bodek the entire Bein- ha'Shemashos

(b)He cannot have meant that she was Bodek the Bein- ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah but not that of Rebbi Yossi - because then Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra would hold that she is not a Zavah even where she was not Bodek at all (and that is not possible).

(c)So what he must have meant was that - she was Bodek herself during both Bein- ha'Shemashos...

(d)... whereas Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra is not Choshesh as long as she was Bodek herself during the Bein- ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah. According to that, Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra classifies the Bein- ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yossi as night.

7)

(a)This leaves us with a discrepancy in Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra. If not for Rebbi, we would have established the earlier Beraisa where she was Bodek during the Bein- ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah but not of Rebbi Yossi, and the current Beraisa where she was Bodek throughout both (and he consistently classifies the Bein- ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yossi as a Safek.

(b)According to Rebbi however, we will have to resolve it - by establishing a Machlokes Tana'im whether Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra classifies the Bein- ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yossi as a Safek (the earlier Beraisa) or as night (the latter Beraisa), like the Rabbanan in the earlier one.

(c)And the basis of the Machlokes between ...

1. ... the two Beraisos is - whether the Beraisa of Rebbi Yossi follows that of Rebbi Yehudah (the earlier Beraisa) or whether it is contained in the same time period (the latter one).

2. ... the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra and Rebbi Yossi in the second Beraisa - is in exactly the same point, since Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra agrees with Rebbi Yossi in the first Beraisa and argues with him in the second.

8)

(a)Rebbi in a Beraisa, declares Tamei retroactively, a woman who finds a bloodstain, regarding Taharos and Kodshim - from the time that she last washed the garment.

(b)Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar - disagrees with Rebbi with regard to Taharos ...

(c)... so that the Din of Kesamim should not be stricter than an actual sighting - which is only Metamei from twenty-four hours earlier.

(d)We reject this version of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar's ruling however - seeing as the Din of Kesamim is indeed stricter regarding Kodshim (where he agrees with Rebbi).

(e)We therefore amend it to read - 'Af Kodshim Einah Metam'ah' (in order to conform to his reason).

9)

(a)Another Beraisa discusses a woman who has a sighting within twenty-four hours of finding a bloodstain. When Rebbi says that we link the bloodstain to the sighting, he means that - the latter is connected to the sighting, and that it is therefore not Metamei retroactively from the time the garment was washed.

(b)Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar only links the Kesem with the sighting up to nightfall, but if the latter occurred beyond that, he considers the Kesem a separate sighting (even if it occurred within twenty-four hours of it).

(c)

1. Rebbi initially prefers the ruling of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar to his own - because, he claims, since Kesamim are mi'de'Rabbanan, it is correct to adopt the more lenient opinion (that of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar).

2. We reject this version of Rebbi's statement however - since it is Rebbi who is the more lenient of the two, and not Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.

(d)So the correct version is - 'Nir'in Devarai mi'Devarav' (that Rebbi prefers his own opinion to that of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar [see also Tosfos DH 'Eipuch']).

10)

(a)Ravina accepts the original version, because, he claims, Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar is more lenient with regard to Zivus. Assuming the sighting takes place within Me'eis Le'eis, but after nightfall, the Zivus period will begin ...

1. ... seven days after finding the Kesem, according to Rebbi.

2. ... seven days after the sighting according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.

(b)And Rebbi is referring to the Chumros of Zivus, which only begin on the eighth day from the time she finds the Kesem, according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, and not the seventh (see also Tosfos DH 'she'Hu Mesaken').

11)

(a)Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Asi whether Kesamim require Hefsek Taharah - a final examination on the night following the seventh day, to ensure that she is Tahor.

(b)Rebbi Asi's reply to the She'eilah was - silence.

(c)When on another occasion, Rebbi Zeira met Rebbi Asi, the latter ruled like Rebbi, regarding a woman who had a sighting within a Me'eis Le'eis of finding a bloodstain. Resh Lakish qualified this ruling - by confining it to where she subsequently examined herself during Bein-ha'Shemashos of the seventh day after finding the Kesem (Hefsek Taharah), but otherwise not ...

(d)... because by not having made Hefsek Taharah - she reveals her intention of following the subsequent sighting and not the Kesem (in which case the Kesem will be Metamei retroactively).

12)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan maintained that - the connection between the Kesem and the sighting have nothing to do with her actions one way or another, and exists automatically.

(b)Rebbi Zeira extrapolated the resolution to his She'eilah from there - by virtue of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, who both agree that on principle, a Kesem requires Hefsek Taharah.

(c)Rebbi Asi prompted by Rebbi Zeira himself, explained that he did not answer him immediately - because the answer only came to him as he was working on the Sugya.

13)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses a woman who has a sighting during the Bein-ha'Shemashos following the eleventh (and final) day of Zivus (who is known as a To'ah). The problem with this is that - we do not know whether it is the beginning of Nidus or the end of Zivus.

(b)The Tana's ruling 'Techilas Nidah ve'Sof Nidah, Techilas Zivah ve'Sof Zivah' is obviously a mistake. Rav Chisda therefore amends it to read ...

1. ... 'ha'Ro'eh Yom Achad-Esrei Bein-ha'Shemashos, Techilas Nidah ve'Sof Zivah ...

2. ... u'va'Shevi'i, Sof Nidah u'Techilas Zivah'.

(c)The ramifications of these two rulings are that - she has to first observe seven days of Nidus, in case her sighting was the first day of Nidus, but she also has to treat it as the last day of Zivus. Consequently, should she then see again on the seventh day of the original sighting, she will again have to observe seven days of Nidus. On the other hand, if she then has three consecutive sightings, she must consider the first sighting to have been the first day of Zivus, in which case, she is now a Zavah, and requires seven clean days before she can begin the days of Nidus. In fact, she is deadlocked until the time period described in Erchin has elapsed.

14)

(a)The Tana rules that a woman who has a sighting during the Bein-ha'Shemashos of the fortieth day after the birth of a boy or of the eightieth day after the birth of a girl - are both in the same dilemma as the woman in the previous case, since they cannot be sure whether they are Tamei or Tahor. Consequently, should they see on the eighth day following that sighting, they do not know whether they are Nidos or Zavos.

(b)Rebbi Yehoshua comments on this that - we first need to clarify the Din of those women who see at a time when they know whether they are Tamei or Tahor, Nidah or Zavah.

(c)We object to the wording of Rebbi Yehoshua - who refers to the women who have sightings at a time when they are Safek Tahor or Tamei ... as Shotos.

(d)We rectify it - by amending the word to To'os.