1)

(a)We ask what the Din will be, according to Rebbi Eliezer, if a Zavah examined herself on the first and on the eighth days only. According to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehoshua - it is obvious that she would only count the eighth day (as the first of her seven clean days), seeing as the first day does not belong to the same group as the eighth and cannot therefore combine with it. And the same will apply to ...

2. ... Rebbi Akiva, who does not contend with the first day anyway.

(b)The two sides of the She'eilah are that - on the one hand, the woman requires the beginning and the end be'Taharah (like the case in the Mishnah [in which case, Rebbi Eliezer too will concede to Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Akiva in this case] since the eighth day is not the end of the seven day period).

(c)On the other hand, bearing in mind that she is Huchz'kah be'Taharah - he might suffice with the beginning alone, and declare her Tahor.

(d)Rav holds like the second side of the Sheeilah - Rebbi Chanina like the first.

2)

(a)Initially, we try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa 've'Shavin be'Zav u've'Zavah she'Badku Atzman be'Yom Rishon u've'Yom Shemini u'Matz'u Tahor, she'Ein lahem Ela Shemini Bil'vad' - by explaining 've'Shavin' to mean that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua concede to Rebbi Akiva.

(b)To refute the proof however, we explain 've'Shavin' to mean that - it is Rebbi Yehoshua who concedes to Rebbi Akiva that she only has the eighth day, and not the first.

3)

(a)The problem with the statement of Rav Yirmiyah bar Aba Amar Rav that a Nidah who separates be'Taharah on her third day may count it as the first of her seven clean days is that - a Nidah during her days of Nidus does not count clean days.

(b)We therefore amend it to read - 'a Zavah ... '.

(c)When Rav Sheishes suggested to Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba that Rav holds like the Kutim - he was referring to Rav's permitting an actual day of sighting among the clean days, which is what the Kutim used to do.

(d)The problem with Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba's answer (that Rav means besides the third day [the fourth] is that - it is obvious that the fourth day is counted among the seven clean days.

4)

(a)We answer that Rav is speaking about where she failed to make a Bedikah before the seventh day, and he is then coming to teach us that - if a woman observed the seventh day only, it will suffice to consider all the six preceding days as being Tahor.

(b)The significance of the fact that he is the one who just argued with Levi in explaining Rebbi Eliezer is that - there he taught us that according to Rebbi Eliezer, the first day alone will suffice to consider the six days that follow to be Tahor, and now he adds that the reverse is also true (since she was Posek be'Taharah on the third day).

(c)Rav needs to add this second ruling, since we would otherwise have thought that - separating on the first day alone will suffice, because it leaves her with Chezkas Taharah, but not the last day only, where she may already be Tamei.

(d)We need Hefsek be'Taharah - in order to remove the Chezkas Tum'ah created by Ma'ayan Pasu'ach.

5)

(a)We query Rav from To'ah that we discussed in the third Perek, where, regarding a woman who left pregnant and returned empty, and who knows nothing about the details of the miscarriage, the Tana obligates her to Tovel every night of the first week following her return (in case she just miscarried a male), but not every day. We think that she ought to Tovel each day as well - in case she was a Yoledes be'Zov (who Tovels by day) and each day may be the final day of her seven clean days.

(b)She does not in fact do so - because she has to count the seven clean days in front of us (she must be aware of having counted them ['Sipurin Lefaneinu') ...

(c)... a Kashya on Rav - who relies on the seven clean days (Bedi'eved), even if the woman did not actually count them all.

(d)We answer - by pointing out that already there we established the Beraisa in question like Rebbi Akiva, who we know requires Sipurin Lefaneinu; whereas the Chachamim do not (as we will now prove).

6)

(a)The Beraisa discusses a To'ah who comes to Beis-Din in the day and claims that she had one sighting, but does not know exactly when, or whether, she is a Nidah or a Zavah. The Tana requires her to make nine Tevilos - seven over the next seven nights (in case the sighting was Nidus, which she saw on any one of the last seven days, including the day she returned); and two in the day, one on the same day, and one on the following one, in case the sighting occurred yesterday or today, and she is a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom.

(b)The reason that we require two Tevilos for Zivus and no more is - because if she saw Zivus prior to that, she will require seven clean days before Toveling.

(c)Had she arrived in the night, she would have required ten Tevilos (one extra one in case she just had a sighting).

(d)The Tana did not say 'ten', to incorporate such a contingency - because he prefers to discuss the minimum that she will always require.

7)

(a)The Beraisa then rules that if she claims to have had a sighting during Bein ha'Shemashos, she will require eleven Tevilos. The problem with that is - why the eleventh Tevilah, seeing as, assuming that she arrived in the day, she would require ten, based on the possibility that she saw the day she arrived.

(b)So Rav Yirmiyah from Difti establishes the case where she also returned Bein ha'Shemashos, and we arrive at eleven Tevilos - by virtue of an extra Tevilas Zivus, as we will now explain.

(c)The three Tevilos of Zivus - are based on the possibility that the Bein ha'Shemashos on which she saw was either the one on which she arrived or the one before. She therefore needs to Tovel on the eighth day from the second day before she arrived, from the day before and the day following the Bein ha'Shemashos that she arrived.

(d)The Tana then rules that a woman who claims that she did not have a sighting at all - requires fifteen Tevilos.

8)

(a)Rava objects to this ruling however. He compares it to what they used to judge in Galchi - obligating whoever owned oxen to guard the herds for one day, and whoever did not, for two.

(b)A certain orphan, son of a widow, who did not own any oxen, and whom they had given all their oxen to look after for two days, announced after Shechting all the oxen that - whoever owned one of them should come and take one skin, whereas whoever who did not, could help themselves to two.

(c)He justified his ruling - by basing it on the initial ruling that had forced him to guard the oxen for two days, even though he did not own any.

(d)The Tana's final ruling - obligating a woman who claims that she did not have a sighting, to Tovel more times than one who declared that she did, seems to have been devised by the judges of Galchi.

(e)We therefore amend the Beraisa to read that what the To'ah really declared was - that she had sightings, but that she neither knows how many she had, nor whether they were seen during the days of Nidus or of Zivus.

9)

(a)Assuming that the To'ah returned ...

1. ... in the day - we ascribe seven of those Tevilos to Tevilas Nidus (at night-time), in case one of the days was the seventh day of Nidus, (including the seventh day, in case she saw on the day of her return); and eight Tevilos to Tevilas Zivus (in the day), in case any of the days is the seventh clean day (including the eighth day, in case she saw her third consecutive sighting on the day of her return).

2. ... in the night - we ascribe eight Tevilos to Tevilas Nidus (including the night that she arrives), and on the eighth night (in case she saw on the night of her return); and seven Tevilos to Tevilas Zivus).

(b)This last statement is incorrect however - because, seeing as she may have had a sighting of Zivus on the night of her return, she will still require an eighth Tevilah.

(c)The problem with the latter case (where she returns in the night) now is - why the Tana reckons fifteen Tevilos, and not sixteen.

(d)And we resolve it - by pointing out that the Tana prefers to mention a case that is constant (a Zavah always requires eight Tevilos, and a Nidah, seven [like we explained the Beraisa on the previous Amud]).

10)

(a)We try to prove from this Beraisa that the Rabbanan do not require Sefurin Befaneinu, because if they did, why would she require all those Tevilos Zivus. All she would need to do would be to count seven clean days, and Tovel on the eighth.

(b)In order to refute this proof, we initially amend the Beraisa to read - (instead of 'Ra'isi, ve'Eino Yode'a Kamah Ra'isi') 'Safarti ve'Eini Yoda'as Kamah Safarti ... '.

(c)This amendment is incorrect however - because, since she must have counted at least one day beforehand, she will require only seven Tevilos Zavah, and not eight.

(d)So we finally amend it to read - 've'Eini Yoda'as Im Safarti ... '.

11)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that a Zav and a Zavah, a Nidah and a Yoledes who died - are all Metamei be'Masa.

(b)The fifth Tamei listed by the Tana - is a Metzora.

(c)This ruling will no longer apply however - once the flesh of the Meis disintegrates.

(d)The Tana rules that a Nochri who died - is not Metamei be'Masa.

12)

(a)According to Beis Shamai, every woman dies a Nidah, in which case - all the clothes that she wore shortly before her death require Tevilah.

(b)Beis Hillel maintain that she is a Nidah - only if we know that she was.

13)

(a)Tum'as Masa in our Mishnah cannot be taken literally - since a Meis is Metamei be'Masa anyway.

(b)It therefore refers to - Tum'as Even Mesama (meaning a large stone that covers something without applying pressure to it [if it is held in place by four posts], and on which one of the five Meisim is lying).

(c)We prove from the Pasuk in Daniel (in connection with the lion's den into which Daniel was placed) "ve'Cheisayas Even Chada Vesumas al-Pum Guba" that - the stone in question is a heavy one, and is not meant to be carried.

(d)We learn it from the word - "Vesumas", which has connotation of Even Mesama'.

(e)This helps define 'Even Mesama' - inasmuch as it distinguishes it from Tum'as Masa, which is Metamei by being carried.

14)

(a)Chazal decreed Tum'as Even Mesama on the cases in our Mishnah even after their death - because otherwise, people will think that, just as a Zav Meis is not Metamei be'Even Mesame, neither is a Zav who fainted.

(b)According to Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa, this Tum'ah will apply up until - the Meis' stomach splits open.

(c)Notwithstanding the fact that a Nochri has the Din of a Zav throughout his lifetime, Rebbi in a Beraisa explains that he is not Metamei be'Even Mesamei after his death - because his Tum'ah was only mi'de'Rabbanan (and the Rabbanan did nota extend the decree after his death).

15)

(a)The men of Alexandria asked Rebbi Yehoshua ben Chananya - twelve questions ...

(b)... three concerning Divrei Chochmah (Halachah), three Divrei Hagadah, three nonsense, and three - Divrei Derech Eretz.

16)

(a)The first She'eilah was until when the five Meisim listed in our Mishnah are Metamei be'Masa, which he answered like our Mishnah. The second concerned a Bas Meshulachas - a woman whom her husband divorces and later remarries, after she has been married to another man.

(b)They asked him whether her daughter has the same Din as the daughter of an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol - who is a Pagum (a Chalal), and who is forbidden to marry a Kohen.

(c)She might ...

1. ... have the same Din as the daughter of an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol - from a Kal va'Chomer, since the La'av there is not Shaveh ba'Kol (it does not apply to Yisre'elim), whereas in our case it does (in which case she should certainly be Pagum).

2. ... be different than her - in that the Almanah herself becomes a Chalalah, whereas the Gerushah in our case does not (since she is forbidden to her former husband anyway).

(d)In reply, Rebbi Yehoshua cited the Pasuk in ki-Seitzei (in connection with a Machzir Gerushaso) "To'evah Hi", from which he extrapolates - "Hi To'evah", ve'Ein Banehah To'evin' (precluding her daughter from being a Chalalah).