1)

(a)Rav Huna rules that a woman who jumped and sighted blood three times - has fixed a Veses.

(b)We suggest that he means a Veses for days, meaning that - if she jumped and had a sighting for example, on three Sundays, she has a Veses for Sundays, and should she fail to examine herself (whether she jumps or not), she is Tamei (because 'a Veses comes in its time').

(c)We reject this suggestion however, on the grounds that - since she tended not to see on days that she did not jump, there can be no Chazakah without jumping.

(d)And we refute the suggestion that what Rav Huna means is that she fixes a Veses for jumping alone, by citing a Beraisa which specifically states - that a Veses cannot be fixed by an Oneis (such as jumping) alone, irrespective of how many times this happens.

(e)We finally establish the Beraisa to mean - that although an Oneis alone does not fix a Veses, either via the Oneis or via the days, together with the day it does (and that is what also what Rav Huna's statement means).

2)

(a)To explain why it is necessary to mention the fact that the Oneis does not fix a Veses via the day alone Rav Ashi establishes the case - where she jumped twice on a Sunday and saw, then she jumped on a Shabbos and did not see, but she did see on Sunday.

(b)This is considered a Veses for days and jumping (and is not just a Veses le'Yamim) - because the third time too, her sighting on Sunday was the result of her having jumped on Shabbos (only she did not see then because her time had not yet arrived).

(c)In the second Lashon, Rav Huna says that if she jumped and saw three times she has a Veses for days only (even without jumping), and there too, Rav Ashi establishes the case - like he did before (see also Hagahos ha'Gra), only the Maskanah there is like the Havah Amina in the first Lashon.

3)

(a)A woman needs to examine herself (for Taharos) - twice a day; in the morning (to permit the Taharos of the previous night) and in the afternoon (to permit the Taharos of the day).

(b)This obligation extends to a woman who has a fixed Veses.

(c)The only two women who do not require ...

1. ... Bedikah - are a Nidah and a Yoledes during her period of Dam Tohar.

2. ... Eidim (cloths) before and after Tashmish - are the latter (of the previous pair) and a Besulah (both of whose blood is Tahor anyway).

4)

(a)Besides the above Bedikos, a Kohenes also needs to examine herself before eating T'rumah. According to Rebbi Yehudah - she requires a second Bedikah after having eaten it.

(b)Everyone agrees that a woman can fix a new Veses during the days of Zivus - where for example, she sees for the first time on Rosh Chodesh and then on the fifteenth (which is during the eleven days of Zivus), a process which repeats itself. Then on the third month, she sees only on the fifteenth and not on Rosh Chodesh.

(c)According to Resh Lakish, she cannot fix a new Veses during her days of Nidus (such as from Rosh Chodesh to the fifth of the month). This conforms with our Mishnah, which rules that a Nidah does not require Bedikah - because there is no point in doing so (since on the one hand, she is Tamei anyway, and on the other, even if she sees blood, she will not fix a new Veses anyway.

(d)Our Mishnah does however pose a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan - who holds that a woman can fix a Veses during the days of Nidus. In that case, why should she not require a Bedikah, to ascertain whether she is fixing a new Veses?

5)

(a)We answer by confining Rebbi Yochanan to where the Veses is established by a closed Ma'ayan (Ma'ayan Sasum) - where she sees on three consecutive Rosh Chodeshes, but also on the twenty-fifth of the third month, in which case the last sighting takes place when she was a Nidah, but not by an open one (such as here).

(b)A Ma'ayan Sasum is - where the Vases is made up of sightings when she was not a Nidah, and the last sighting is considered Ma'ayan Sasum, (despite the fact that she had a sighting a few days earlier) ...

(c)... because we assume that that sighting was really due to take place on Rosh Chodesh, only it took place early, because she had excess blood.

(d)A Ma'ayan Pasu'ach is - there where the first sightings took place whilst she was a Nidah (before she had another fixed Veses).

(e)The alternative interpretation of ...

1. ... 'Ma'ayan Sasum' is - where, after sighting blood, she stopped seeing for a day or two before seeing again on the fourth or fifth day after the first sighting.

2. ... 'Ma'ayan Pasu'ach' is - where she had sightings right through to the fifth day.

6)

(a)When we assume that 'ha'Yosheves al Dam Tohar' (whom our Mishnah exempts from Bedikah) means 'Mevakeshes Leishev al Dam Taharah', we mean - that she does not require Bedikah on the seventh day after giving birth to a boy, or on the fourteenth after a girl (since she is Tamei anyway due to Dam Leidah).

(b)This creates a problem however, with Levi, who holds that Dam Tamei and Dam Tahor come from two different sources - since as long as the former is still open, the latter remains closed, in which case, she ought to require Bedikah, in case the former has not yet closed).

(c)According to Rav - the two bloods emanate from the same source (which the Torah declares Tame one day, and Tahor, the next) ...

(d)... in which case she will be Tahor the next day regardless - so there would be no point in making a Bedikah.

7)

(a)Levi establishes our Mishnah like Beis Shamai (who hold that the two bloods emanate from the same source). The reason that Rebbi not usually present a S'tam Mishnah like Beis Shamai - is because the Halachah is generally not like him. This principle is not applicable here however, since it is a S'tam followed by a Machlokes, where the Halachah is anyway not like the S'tam.

(b)Alternatively, we interpret 'Yosheves al Dam Tohar' literally (where the days of Taharah have actually begun). The problem with this is - that it seems obvious, and does not therefore require a Mishnah.

(c)And we resolve it - with the argument that if not for the Mishnah, we might have thought that she ought to examine herself in case she sees blood, which would entail beginning a new Veses.

(d)We reject this argument however, according to ...

1. ... Levi - on the grounds that a woman cannot fix a Veses from Dam Tahor on to Dam Tamei.

2. ... Rav - for exactly the same reason (despite the fact that Dam Tahor and Dam Tamei emanate from the same source).

8)

(a)According to Beis Shamai, a young girl who gets married has the Din of a Besulah (whose blood is Tahor) for four days. Beis Hillel renders her Tahor - until the wound caused by the Tashmish heals (as we shall see in the tenth Perek).

(b)Rav Gidal Amar Shmuel qualifies Beis Hillel's ruling in three different ways. When he says 'Paskah Machmas Tashmish ve'Ra'asah, Teme'ah', he means - that she did not see blood following Tashmish, but did have a sighting afterwards.

(c)The second case (where Beis Hillel concedes she is Tamei) is where she sees following a night where there has been no Tashmish, and the third is - where she saw both during Tashmish and afterwards, but the second blood looks different than the first.

(d)Rebbi Yonah queries the last case from our Mishnah, which exempts a Besulah from using Eidim before and after Tashmish - in that if a change of blood will render her Tamei, then why should she not use Eidim, to check for any such change?

9)

(a)Rava counters Rebbi Yonah's Kashya from the Reisha, which exempts from Bedikah a Nidah and Yoseheves al Dam Tahor - but not it seems, a Besulah (a proof that a Besulah does require Bedikah).

(b)We resolve the discrepancy between the two rulings - by differentiating between a Bedikah after Tashmish (where the blood is affected by the Eiver Tashmish, negating the possibility of comparing the two bloods [the Seifa]), and a Bedikah from the morning to the afternoon, where there was no Tashmish and where a proper comparison between the two bloods is therefore possible.

(c)And the reason that a Meshameshes does not require Bedikah before Tashmish (to compare any blood that she may find then to the blood which she saw on the previous occasion) is - because as we have already learned, the only reason that she needs to examine herself before Tashmish is on account of the Bedikah after Tashmish ('Migu'). Consequently, since there was no Bedikah after Tashmish, there is no Bedikah before either.

(d)Alternatively, we answer that it is only if she was not Meshamesh after the first night that she requires a Bedikah each morning and evening, because if she was, then we would attribute the different appearance of the current blood to that of the previous sighting to the fact that the Eiver Tashmish changed its appearance. We object to this Lashon however, on the grounds that - even if she was not Meshamesh after the first night, she requires a Bedikah anyway, as Rav Gidal Amar Shmuel just taught.

10)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that every woman requires Bedikah each morning and evening. The problem with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's statement ...

1. ... that this is confined to Taharos, but that for her husband this is not necessary is - that this is self-understood from the fact that the Tana says 'Shachris' (and it is not permitted to indulge in Tashmish by day).

2. ... after we try to establish Shmuel's statement on the Seifa 'u've'Sha'ah she'Hi Overes Leshamesh es Beisah', which he confines to where she is busy with Taharos (but not otherwise) is - that we have already learned in the Mishnah in the next Perek that all women have a Chezkas Taharah to their husbands.

3. ... even after we establish it by a woman who does not have a Veses (whereas that Mishnah speaks about one who does) is - that our Mishnah (which Shmuel is referring to) must be speaking about a woman who has a Veses (since the Tana mentions 'Dayah Sha'atah').

(b)We conclude that our Mishnah is speaking about both a woman who has a Veses and one who does not, and that Shmuel is referring specifically to one who does not. By including a woman who has a Veses in his ruling, the Tana is coming to teach us - the 'Migu' (that in spite of the Mishnah in 'Kol ha'Yad', once she requires a Bedikah for Taharos [after Tashmish], she also requires one [before Tashmish] for her husband).

(c)We query Shmuel however, from a statement by Rebbi Zeira Amar Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba Amar Shmuel, who prohibits a woman who does not have a Veses to her husband without a Bedikah - which we establish by a woman who is dealing with Taharos, in which case his previous ruling is redundant.

(d)To resolve the problem, we conclude - that Shmuel only made one of the statements, and either Rav Yehudah extrapolated his statement from that of Rebbi Yirmiyah bar Aba, or vice-versa (see Tosfos DH 'Tanya Nami Hachi').

11)

(a)We learned also in a Beraisa that even a woman who has no Veses does not require a Bedikah for her husband alone (see Tosfos DH 'Tanya Nami Hachi'). The Tana adds - that if a man leaves his wife be'Chezkas Teme'ah - she remains forbidden to him until she specifically informs him that she is Tehorah.