1)

(a)When Rava asked whether Koshi demolishes the clean days, he meant that - if she sees blood during the seven clean days, and is in pain on account of the impending birth, does this demolish what she has already counted?

(b)He thought that maybe...

1. ... it does - because such a sighting is Tamei.

2. ... it does not - because it does not (if seen on the third day) create Zivus.

(c)We cannot resolve the She'eilah from Keri, which demolishes, even though it does not create Zivus - because it only demolishes one day (which Koshi does too), whereas Rava was asking about demolishing all seven days.

2)

(a)Abaye tried to resolve the She'eilah from Oneis be'Zov - which does not create Tum'ah (as we learned 've'Lo Machmas Onso', yet it demolishes (as we learned 'ba'Revi'is Ein Bodkin oso').

(b)When Rava replied that according to ...

1. ... the Chachamim, Oneis be'Zov does indeed create Tum'ah - he meant that, if the third sighting is be'Oneis, it combines with the previous two (to obligate him to bring a Korban), as we learned in the Mishnah in Zavin 'Shelishis, Ein Bodkin oso'.

2. ... Rebbi Eliezer, there is indeed no She'eilah - he meant that, since he says Shelishis, Bodkin oso', we see that it does not create Zivus, and does not therefore demolish the clean days either.

(c)We query this from a Beraisa however, where Rebbi Eliezer says 'ba'Revi'is Ein Bodkin oso, which refers (not to demolishing the seven clean days, for which it does require Bedikah [because Oneis does not demolish] but) - to bringing a Korban (which Oneis does not obligate [as we learned earlier in the Perek]).

(d)We refute this answer however, on the basis of another Beraisa, where Rebbi Eliezer specifically states that - he is referring to a Korban, and not to demolishing the seven clean days (which be'Oneis definitely does [even though it does not create Zivus], as we explained).

(e)In fact, Rava was aware that he could have resolved the She'eilah from Rebbi Eliezer - but he only posed it according to the Rabbanan.

3)

(a)We finally resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa cited by the father of Rebbi Avin, where the Tana rules, based on 'Mah Garam lo ...

1. ... Zovo Shiv'ah' that - it demolishes seven days.

2. ... Kiryo Echad' that - it demolishes one day.

(b)We know that by the first half of the statement, he cannot have meant that he is Metamei for seven day - because then what he ought to have said was 'Mah Zovo Tamei Shiv'ah'.

(c)What he therefore meant was that - whatever causes Zivus demolishes seven days, and whatever does not, doesn't.

(d)Abaye cites the custom that Koshi does not demolish by Zivah and the author of any Beraisa who holds that it does - must me Rebbi Eliezer, as we already explained.

4)

(a)Rebbi Merinus in a Beraisa rules that birth in the middle of the clean days of Zivus does not demolish the clean days. When we ask whether they count we mean to ask - whether if the woman gives birth be'Zov and does not have a sighting within the seven days following birth - they count as seven clean days or not.

(b)According to Abaye, they don't - whereas Rava holds that they do.

(c)The Beraisa extrapolates from the Pasuk in Metzora (in connection with a Zavah) "ve'Achar Tit'har" that - a woman only becomes Tahor as long as no Tum'ah interrupts between her third sighting and the days of Taharah.

(d)Rava queries Abaye from there, inasmuch as - if the first seven days do not count, then it transpires that Tum'ah did interrupt.

(e)To which Abaye answers that - what the Torah is particular about is that days of Zivus should not interrupt (to preclude the days of Tum'as Leidah).

5)

(a)Rava cites as his source (that the days of Leidah do count) a Beraisa which discusses the Pasuk there "mi'Zovo". When the Tana Darshens from the Pasuk "mi'Zovo" 've'Lo mi'Nego'o', he means that a Yoledes be'Zov who is also a Metzora'as (who needs to count seven clean days from her Zivus and to bring her Korban, in order to be permitted to her husband) - does not need to wait until she is Tahor from Tzara'as as well.

(b)The Tana also learns from "ve'Lo mi'Nega'o" - "mi'Zovah", 've'Lo mi'Leidasah' (a proof that Leidah does not demolish, but does count).

(c)Abaye simply erases the second D'rashah from the Beraisa (leaving only the D'rashah that precludes Tzara'as).

6)

(a)Rava proves that the Tana must be coming to preclude Leidah - since we already know the D'rashah precluding Tzara'as from a Zav (from "mi'Zovo", 've'Lo mi'Nega'o'), and the Tana would not need to mention it).

(b)According to Abaye however, we need both D'rashos because each one has a leniency (which might be the reason for precluding Leidah). We could not learn ...

1. ... Zavah from Zav - because a Zav is not Metamei be'Oneis, whereas a Zavah is.

2. ... Zav from Zavah - because a Zavah is not Metamei with three sightings on the same day, whereas a Zav is.

7)

(a)Abaye cites as his source (that the days of Leidah do not count) a Beraisa which learns from the words "D'vosah Titma" (in the Pasuk in Tazri'a "ki'Yemei Nidas D'vosah Titma" [in connection with a Yoledes]), that the Bo'el and night-time are included in Tum'as Nidus, and that a Yoledes be'Zov needs to keep seven clean days (as we learned earlier) - clean from birth as well as from blood (a Kashya on Rava).

(b)To refute Abaye's proof - Rava confines it to the need to be clean from blood exclusively.

(c)So Abaye cites as his source, another Beraisa which specifically learns from "ki'Yemei Nidas(Devos)ah" that the days of Leidah, just like the days of Nidus, do not count as the seven clean days - since, once she becomes a Zavah, Nidus cannot take effect until after the seven clean days after Zivus have passed.

(d)Rava refutes this proof too - by establishing the author of the Beraisa as Rebbi Eliezer (who, we already know, holds that the days of Leidah demolish, as we learned on the previous Amud).

8)

(a)We object to learning Leidah from Nidah - on account of the principle Ein Danin Efshar (Leidah, which can occur during the clean days) mi'she'I Efshar (Nidus, which cannot, as we just explained).

(b)Rav Achdeva'i bar Ami Amar Rav answers by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer, who holds - Danin Efshar mi'she'I Efshar.

(c)Rav Papa answers even according to Rebbi Akiva (who holds 'Ein Danin Efshar mi'she'I Efshar') - because it is not we who are comparing the two, but the Torah itself, in the form of a Hekesh, which overrides the principle Ein Danin ... (since a Hekesh is not subject to a Pircha).

(d)If it were a Gezeirah-Shavah however (which is subject to a Pircha), we could not learn one from the other, because the principle would override it.

9)

(a)If the woman had relief from the blood as well as from the pain, Rav Chisda holds that she is nevertheless Tamei Zivus. According to Rebbi Chanina - she is Tahor.

(b)And he compares it to a king - whose troops precede him when he leaves the palace.

(c)Likewise - the fact that the woman stopped seeing blood, is a sign that the blood of Koshi (the troops) one or two days earlier (see Seifer 'Eizehu Mekoman') occurred on account of the baby (the king) and preceded it.

(d)If she had felt relief from the pain but continued to see blood - we would assume that she would have seen blood even without the Koshi.

10)

(a)Rav Chisda refutes Rebbi Chanina's Mashal with the argument that - if the blood of Koshi came to herald the birth, then how much more so ought we to say this if it did not stop before the birth occurred.

(b)Our Mishnah cited Rebbi Yehoshua, who requires a full day of night and then day of relief from the pain but not from the blood - implying that if there was relief from the blood as well, she would be Tahor (a Kashya on Rav Chisda).

(c)Rav Chisda replies that - what the Tana means is that even if she had relief from the pain but not from the blood, she is Tamei (and it goes without saying that she would be Tamei if she had relief from both).

(d)We might otherwise have thought that - just as the blood did not stop, so did the Koshi not stop either (and it is only because her senses were dulled due to the pain of the Koshi [which we refer to as Tunba], that she thought that it had).

11)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that if a woman suffers Koshi for three days, followed by one day of relief, she a Yoledes be'Zov. The problem with this statement the way it stands is that - she is Tamei even she sees only for two days and one of relief.

(b)We therefore amend the Mishnah to read that - if she either has relief from both the pain and the blood after three sightings, or she suffers Koshi for two days and enjoys relief for one, she is a Yoledes be'Zov.

(c)The latter ruling poses a Kashya on Rebbi Chanina, which he answers by retaining the original text, and the Tana is coming to preclude Rebbi Chanina (the nephew of Rebbi Yehoshua, whom we quoted on the previous Daf) who rules that - one does not require relief for a full twenty-four hour period of a night and a day (like his uncle Rebbi Yehoshua) to be considered a Yoledes be'Zov, but will suffice with a day and two half-nights (see Maharsha [see also Maharam]).

12)

(a)We cited Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, who says that even forty or fifty days prior to the birth is considered Koshi. To answer asw to why the Tana finds it necessary to add forty days (in spite of having mentioned fifty) Rav Chisda explains - that fifty refers to a sick person, and forty to a healthy one, for whom fifty would not constitute Koshi (see Tosfos DH 'Arba'im).

(b)When Levi says that the Leidah (with reference to the Koshi) renders Tahor only the days when she is fit to become a Zavah he means - the eleven days between Nidah and Nidah, but if they extend beyond that into the days that she is fit to become a Nidah, the Koshi will not prevent her from becoming a Yoledes be'Nidus.

(c)Rav renders her Tahor even if the Koshi extends from the days of Zivus into the seven clean days, seeing as they pertain to the Zivus.

(d)Rav Ada bar Ahavah adds to Rav's ruling that - even if the Koshi extends into the days after she demolishes her clean days, and began counting them again, she will not be a Yoledes be'Zov ...

(e)... and the Beraisa that we learned earlier, which precludes the days of Nidus from Koshi - speaks specifically where the Koshi began during the days of Nidus.