Question: If he feeds her, how does the husband benefit? Without a Shifchah, she (his wife) would do everything, and he would feed only her;

Now, he must feed her and her Shifchah! (Maharsha answers that for one silver Ma'ah, he gets the excess earnings of her and her Shifchah. Pnei Yehoshua says that normally, a Shifchah does twice as much work as a wife. Hafla'ah connotes that she does the same amount of work, but he may feed her bare subsistence rations. If a wife works, one must feed her according to her honor.)

Explanation: She lessened for him from what he was obligated to give to her, e.g. a box of fragrances and other things;

She economized so much that he can buy from [the savings] several Shifchos. R. Tam explained like this.

Alternate text: Some texts say she'Matz'ah (she found) to him, i.e. he is rich, and he can buy for her many Shifchos, according to her need.

Implied question: The Mishnah says that if she brought three [slaves, she does not set his bed!]

Answer: I explained this above (4b, that here we discuss spreading the sheet, which is a matter of endearment. It is unlike) setting the bed of our Mishnah (which discusses pillows and blankets, which is a toil.)

Suggestion: This supports what R. Shemayah wrote in Machzor Vitri, that Rashi was careful not to give even a key from his hand to the hand of [Ishto Nidah]!

Rebuttal: Mixing a cup [of wine] is different. It is a matter of endearment. She may not even bring it in front of him on the table. [Rava's wife] would place it at the head of his bed, and Abaye's wife would place it on top of a barrel.

Suggestion: [We can support Rashi from] Seder Eliyahu, regarding the episode brought in Shabbos 13b), of a man who learned much written and oral Torah [and his widow was complaining why he died young];

Citation (Seder Eliyahu -Eliyahu): Perhaps you brought to him a flask or oil [when you were Nidah]!

Citation (cont. - the widow): Heaven forbid! He didn't even touch my pinky!

Rebuttal: Also this is not a proof. We can say that he was not particular about bringing the flask. Rather, he meant "perhaps when bringing the flask you were not careful, and he touched you!"

Support: Her answer connotes like this. She said "he didn't even touch my pinky!" She did not say that she did not bring to him.

Inference: Rashi explained that she switched to use the left hand in Yemei Libunah (while counting seven clean days). This implies that these days are more lenient than days of Nidah.

Support: In Shabbos (13b), in the episode I brought above, [Eliyahu] asked "What was his conduct with you in your days of Nidah? What was his conduct with you in your Yemei Libun?!

Limitation: It seems that it was common to immerse after seven days from her initial sighting [of Dam Nidah], when she ceased to see blood, for then [she is Nidah] only mid'Rabanan. (It is reasonable that Shmuel's wife did so due to Taharos, e.g. to eat Terumah of Bavel. Shmuel was a Kohen, and there was Mei Chatas in his days - PF.)

However, nowadays it is not common to immerse until after seven clean days, so there is no difference between Yemei Libunah and days of Nidah.

We say in Shabbos (64b) "Tihyeh Nidasah" -she is in her status [of Nidah] until she enters water.

Explanation: She is not obligated to do either;

Source (Nedarim 81b - Beraisa): Vows between her and others, e.g. "Konam that I will work for my father or your father, for my brother or your brother, I will not put straw in front of your animal or cattle", [her husband] cannot annul them.

Explanation: We inferred that our Mishnah holds that she must spin wool, but not linen. It refers to Roman linen.

Implied question: We hold (below, 77a) that wherever R. Shimon ben Gamliel's opinion appears in a Mishnah, the Halachah follows him [with only three exceptions, and this is not one of them]!

Answer: (That general rule refers to Rebbi's father, the son of R. Gamliel of Yavneh.) It does not apply to R. Shimon ben Gamliel (in our Mishnah, the father of R. Gamliel of Yavneh), who was in the days of R. Eliezer.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): [They argue about] Shifchos, and correspondingly oven ash, which is a teaching [of Amora'im]. The two versions differ about both of these.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): This that [Rav Papa] said that Rav Malkiya taught [about] Mishnayos and Beraisos does not come to argue about the [Amora'ic] teaching of Rav Malkiya (i.e. to say that Rav Malkiya did not teach it);

Rather, he comes to teach that Rav Malkiya taught every Mishnah and Beraisa, and not Rav Malkiyo.

However, some teachings Rav Malkiyo taught, and others Rav Malkiya taught.

Support: The Siman (way to remember) he gave was "Beraisos are queen." He did not give a Siman for teachings.

Explanation (Ri): This comes to teach that even though their custom was to learn and do Melachah in their city, and the Torah Onah for a Talmid is every Erev Shabbos, like it says in the Gemara, and twice a week for workers, like the Seifa teaches...

Even so, they can change their custom, and Talmidim may leave for a month, and workers for a week.