Explanation #1 (Rashi): He asks about one who saw at the end of 30 days after a break of three Onos [without seeing], whether she is Metamei me'Es la'Es;

Since she was huz to see before the break of the first three Onos, it is as if her time to see arrived, like any [regular] woman who passed three Onos. She is Dayah Shaitah only on the first [sighting];

Limitation: Only when a second set of three Onos passed, she is Dayah Shaitah, like R. Eliezer.

Implied question: We do not find that R. Eliezer discusses a second set of Onos, only the first set!

Answer: Even so, he agrees that Dayah Shaitah during the second set until she makes a Chazakah, like Rebbi or R. Shimon ben Gamliel.

Implied question: The Reisha is like Rebbi, and the Seifa is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel!

According to Rebbi, when she sees at the end of the Onos after the first break, she is Metamei me'Es la'Es. She is like one whose time to see arrived;

Also after the second set of Onos passed, she is Metamei me'Es la'Es. Since twice she saw after a break (of three Onos), according to Rebbi this reveals that her Veses changed, and her blood was not removed. She need not become Muchzak for [seeing] blood.

Consequence: According to this Perush, the Beraisa above (7b) which says that a Zekenah who passed three Onos is Dayah Shaitah is unlike Rebbi, for according to Rebbi, she is Metamei me'Es la'Es as if she saw at the end of an Onah.

Support: Also the Rashbam explained like this below (68a).

Rebuttal: This is wrong. The Gemara should not have been unsure about this! It should have ruled that since the Reisha is Rebbi, also the Seifa is Rebbi, and also when she saw at the end of an Onah Dayah Shaitah, just like when three more Onos passed!

Explanation #2: Even if she is Metamei me'Es la'Es when she saw at the end of an Onah after the break of the first three Onos, through the second three Onos she becomes Mesulekes Damim, so Dayah Shaitah even according to Rebbi, since her time to see did not arrive;

We do not distinguish between one whose time to see did not arrive and a Zekenah.

Also the Beraisa of a Zekenah is Rebbi.

Question: This requires investigation, if when her time to see arrived, the second three Onos, according to R. Eliezer. Do we say that Dayah Shaitah, like a Zekenah according to Rabanan?

Suggestion: Since it did not teach that when her time arrived, she is Dayah Shaitah until the third break of three Onos, which would be a bigger Chidush than when her time to see did not arrive [we may infer that even after the second break, she is not Dayah Shaitah]!

Rejection: We cannot prove that even if she saw after the second three Onos, she is Metamei me'Es la'Es, for we can say that the reason it taught before her time came to see, [to teach that] even so she is Metamei the third time me'Es la'Es.

Version #1: In most Seforim, the text says "when her time came to see, the first time Dayah Shaitah. The second time, she is Metamei me'Es la'Es. Who taught this? It is Rebbi."

Rejection: This text is wrong. Rather, the text says "who taught this? It is Rebbi", and it is proven from the Reisha from a minor whose time to see did not come. It teaches that the third time, she is like all women, i.e. because two times makes a Chazakah, and in the sighting that makes her Chazakah, she is not Metamei me'Es la'Es;

According to R. Shimon ben Gamliel, she is not like all women until the fourth sighting.

However, the Seifa, in which her time came to see, she is Metamei me'Es la'Es, is like everyone, for through the first sighting she is Muchzak, like the Mishnah says "in which case did they say Dayah Shaitah? In the first sighting..."

You are forced to say that our Mishnah is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, for in Yevamos (64b), we say that regarding Vestos and a Mu'ad ox, the Tana of the Stam Mishnah is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel. There is no Stam Mishnah like Rebbi.

Support: Also, if the inference is from the Seifa and the Reisha is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, we should ask that the Reisha is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel and the Seifa is like Rebbi!

Question: Here it says that in that sighting which establishes her, she is not Metamei me'Es la'Es;

In Sanhedrin (81b), regarding one who was lashed and lashed again, it says that if Aveiros make a Chazakah [that the person will transgress again], after two Aveiros [if Kares], immediately they enter him to Kipah (a cell in which he is fed a sparse diet with barley, so his stomach will burst) according to Rebbi.

Answer: There, once he was Huchzak for an Aveirah, why should we wait until he transgresses a third time? However, here Chachamim enacted me'Es la'Es if she sees after she was Huchzak.

Inference: A Kesem after the third [sighting] is Tamei. This is like Rebbi.

Question: In Yevamos (64b), R. Yitzchak b'Ribi Yosi said in the name of R. Yochanan regarding one who circumcised her first son [and he died, and also the second], like R. Shimon ben Gamliel [that three times makes a Chazakah]!

Answer #1: There, we conclude that one may not rely on R. Yitzchak Sumka.

Answer #2: This entire Sugya refers to the Beraisa above, which is like Rebbi.

Explanation: If the appearance of her blood changed the next day from its appearance at the time of Bi'ah, she is Temei'ah;

Whereas if she found a Kesem after Bi'ah, she is Tehorah, like it says below (60a) [that if we are unsure from which woman a Kesem came, another woman] attributes it to the Besulah, for her blood is Tahor!

Inference: Since it does not distinguish, this connotes that even if the blood is different, it is Tahor!

Explanation (cont.): We answer that here, her "sap" (blood) of Taharah is not common. If the blood came from her body, she is Vadai Temei'ah;

However, there her "sap" of Taharah is common. Therefore, she is Tehorah, for we can say that the Kesem came from elsewhere, and even if it came from her body, we can say that it is Dam Besulim, and the wound did not yet heal.

Inference: This connotes that [R. Shimon ben Yehotzadak] was [R. Yochanan's] Rebbi.

Note: Rashi (Chulin 113b DH Ha) says that "Mishum" teaches that he did not hear directly from him. The Rashbam (Bava Basra 114b DH Mishum) says that it teaches that he was not his primary Rebbi. The Rambam (introduction to Mishnah) says that [in Mishnayos] it teaches that he was his primary Rebbi. Surely, all agree that normally, one cites teachings only in the name of someone greater than himself. Here, Ula calls him "[R. Yochanan's] Rebbi."

Question: In Sanhedrin (26a), Reish Lakish called R. Shimon ben Yehotzadak a cattle shepherd (ignoramus), and R. Yochanan did not protest for his Rebbi's honor!

Answer (R. Tam): There were two [Chachamim named R. Shimon ben Yehotzadak].

Explanation: In the market, that it is not known whether or not she saw, we do not establish her like one who sees, since her time to see did not arrive, and she did not [yet] see three times. We discuss even the daughter of an Am ha'Aretz;

However, in the house, it is known whether or not she saw.

Question: Perhaps R. Shimon ben Yehotzadak holds like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, that three times makes a Chazakah, and Chizkiyah agrees that according to R. Shimon ben Gamliel, her Kesem is Tahor!

Answer: Her spit or what she stepped on are more lenient than her Kesem, since he is unsure whether or not her Kesem is Tamei;

Since it is more lenient, if [R. Shimon ben Yehotzadak] holds like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, he should have been Metaher her spit and what she stepped on, until the fourth time.

Question: Our Mishnah teaches that she must check, except for a Nidah... Why doesn't it exclude also one whose time to see did not arrive?

And [it should exclude also] the case below (38b), that all 11 [days of Zivah] she has Chezkas Taharah, and the Gemara explains that she does not need Bedikah!

Answer: Our Mishnah explains only those who do not need Bedikah because there is no adamancy about their sightings, for a Nidah is Temei'ah in any case, and one during Dam Tahor is always Tehorah even if she sees;

However, one whose time to see did not arrive, and [one during the] 11 days [of Zivah] do not need Bedikah because they are Mesulekes Damim. These were not taught.

Question: Also our Mishnah (7a) of four women teaches "when did they say that Dayah Shaitah (singular)...?"!

Answer: There, we cannot err. Here, we can err and say that it refers to a pregnant woman and she is nursing.

Question: How did she become pregnant without a sighting? We say below (31b) that a woman becomes pregnant only close to her Tevilah or her Veses!

Answer #1: Most of the time it is so, and sometimes she happens to become pregnant [at other times].

Answer #2: During days that it is normal for her to see, she becomes pregnant only close to her Tevilah or her Veses.

Inference: This is even if she sees several times.

Implied question: When her time to see did not arrive, it says above that the third time, she is Metamei me'Es la'Es!

Answer: That is because since she became Huchzak to see, the removal [of blood] is Batel (she is no longer Mesulekes Damim);

However, here, a pregnant or nursing woman, what removes [blood] still exists. Even if initially [the blood] was not removed, it is progressively removed at the end.

Question: What is the difference between one whose time to see did not arrive, who does not need Bedikah, and a pregnant or nursing woman needs Bedikah? Our Mishnah teaches "she must check" regarding all of them!

Answer: as long as [the former] was not Huchzak, she is Mesulekes Damim more than all of them.