Question: The Rashba wonders from where we know this?

Question (cont.): Perhaps the reason that they are Patur is because Rebbi Yossi holds 'Nashim ba'Sheini R'shus!'?

Answer: The Ri answers that it is evident later at the end of Perek ha'Ishah (Daf 91:) that he he holds 'Nashim ba'Sheini Chovah'.

Clarification: But we hold like the Rabbanan, who hold that she is Tamei retroactively.

Question: Even when we attributed Rebbi Yossi's reason to 'Tzitz Meratzeh', what is the Kashya, why can we not say that we hold like the Rabbanan?

Answer: The Gemara does not want to create a new Machlokes, since we do not find Tana'im arguing over this point ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas with regard to 'Lemafre'a Hu Metamei' we do find a Machlokes Tana'im in Nidah (Daf 72.), regarding the Mishnah 'Tavlah Yom she'le'Acharav ve'Shimshah'.

Explanation #1: Since the Gemara does not answer that it speaks where she saw at night, it implies that counting at night is valid. And this is also how Rashi explains it.

Question #1: The Riva queries that however, from the Mishnah in the second Perek of Megilah (Daf 20.) 'And similarly a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom may not Tovel until sunrise'. And the Gemara finally explains there that this is because she requires Shimur, which can only take place in the day?

Question #2: Similarly, the Gemara in Nidah (Daf 72.) states 'They agree that if she sees on the eleventh day, Tovels and is intimate with her husband that they are Metamei Mishkav and Moshav and are Chayav a Korban' ...

Question #2 (concl.): Implying even if she did not have another sighting, because Shimur at night is not considered Shimur?

Explanation #2: Even though counting at night is indeed not valid.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Because, since Rebbi Yossi holds that part of the day that she counted on the seventh is like the whole day, the same will apply if she stopped seeing in the middle of the day, the Shimur of the remainder of the day also counts for a whole day.

Explanation #2 (cont.): That is why the Gemara establishes the case either where the blood flowed for three days, where the day did not end be'Taharah.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Or where she saw throughout the two bein-ha'Shemashos periods, in which case one cannot say that the middle of the day counts as a Shimur, because we only say 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo' either at the beginning of the day or at the end, but not in the middle.

Proof: And so the Gemara states explicitly in the second Perek of Nazir (Daf 15.) where in answer to the question how, according to Rebbi Yossi, there is ever a case of a proper Zavah, seeing as when she sees during the first half of the day, the second half serves as a Shimur ...

Proof (cont.): The Gemara answers 'Where she sees on three consecutive day close to Bein ha'Shemashos, where there is no time in the day leave the counting.

Conclusion: 'Three days' is actually La'v Davka, since the third sighting does not need to be close to sunset, seeing as she already saw twice close to sunset, on the day it does not matter when she sees during the night, as long as she sees before day-break, so that the Shimur of the beginning of the third day should not count for her.

Question: We say in Perek B'nos Kutim (Nidah, Daf 33.) that the day that a Kutis stops, she counts in the seven (clean days).

Question (cont.): But Rebbi Yossi too, holds here that the end of the day is like the whole day?

Answer: He does not say that the end of the day is like the whole day at the beginning of the Cheshbon. Only at the end (as is the case here) ...

Answer (cont.): Such as a Zav on his seventh day or a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom, who has no more days to count, since we can learn the end of the Cheshbon from the end, but not from the beginning of the Cheshbon.

Precedent: Indeed, we find a difference between the beginning of the Cheshbon and the end, in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 10.) with regard to Nidah, where the end of the day counts at the beginning of her Cheshbon, but the beginning of the day does not count at the end (of her Cheshbon).

Conclusion: Even though the S'vara there is the opposite of what it is here.

Question: Why do we not apply here 'Dayo' - that just as known Tum'ah is only permitted where there is no other possibility, so too, with regard to Tum'as ha'Tehom?

Answer: The Gemara gives a better answer, which goes even according to Rebbi Tarfon, who holds that 'Dayo' does not apply there where the Kal va'Chomer will be rendered ineffective.

Question #1: The Riva asks from the end of Nazir (Daf 63.) where the Gemara cites this conclusion, but does cite there the words of Rebbi Yochanan ...

Question #2: Moreover, it only asks on Rebbi Elazar ...

Question #3: Furthermore it says there 'All very well according to the opinion that holds 'ke'Derech ... '.

Conclusion: This is one of the Sugyos that is cited differently in different places.

Clarification: Davka before the Zerikah, but not before the Shechitah ...

Support: As Rashi brings in the Mishnah from the Tosefta.

Clarification: This can only be speaking before the blood of any of the Korbanos has been sprinkled ...

Proof: Because if he becomes Tamei even after one of the bloods have been sprinkled, we learned in Perek Sheloshah Minim (Nazir, Daf 47.) that he should bring the remaining Korbanos after he becomes Tahor' - even if it is a known Tum'ah, and not demolish his Nezirus.

Conclusion: And the 'Ritzuy' of Tum'as ha'Tehom throughout the Sugya means that one does not need to demolish one's Nezirus.

Question: The Ri asks from the Mishnah in the last Perek of Nazir (Daf 63.) which states that if one becomes aware of the Tum'ah before one has shaved, even Tum'as ha'Tehom demolishes', And Rebbi Yochanan there establishes it like Rebbi Eliezer who holds that shaving iscrucial.

Question (cont.): In that case, if he became aware of it before the Zerikah, which is also crucial, why does it not also demolish the Nezirus?

Answer: The Ri answers that here, since the Korban has been Shechted, one needs to complete bringing the Korban, and the Tzitz therefore atones for Tum'as ha'Tehom, so that it does not demolish as if it became Tamei after the Zerikah.

Answer (cont.): And it is not comparable to before the shaving ...

Implied Question: Even though the shaving takes place after the Zeerikah ...

Source: As we learned in 'Sheloshah Minim' (Ibid.46.) 'If he shaved on a Korban which is found to Pasul, his shaving is Pasul'.

Proof: Now if the shaving precedes the Zerikah - why can he not bring another Korban, according to the Rabbanan, who hold that the shaving is not crucial.

Conclusion: And that explains why it atones here before the Zerikah.

Sugya in Nazir: In the last Perek of Nazir (Daf 65.), regarding the Mishnah there, the Gemara extrapolates ''ha'Motzi' - to preclude a corpse that has already been found; 'Meis' - to preclude one that was killed; 'Mushkav' - to preclude one that is sitting.

Question: The Riva asks that here, 'sitting' is more appropriate than lying, since if the corpse is lying, it does not fit so well into the category of Tum'as ha'Tehom, if they buried him there.

Answer: The Tana mentions 'lying' because of T'rumah, since it takes up the entire width of the street, making it impossible not to be make an Ohel over it or to move it (as one walks past) ...

Answer (concl.): But not if is sitting, where it is possible that one did not make an Ohel over it.

Question: How is Tum'as ha'Tehom applicable to a grave, which must have been known to have been buried there.

Answer: One can answer that the corpse fell into the grave and died.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Din that 'the grave combines the corpse', we learn from the Pasuk "O ba'Kaver" ...

Refutation: The Ri disagrees with that, because perhaps the Pasuk is speaking about a covered grave?

Explanation #2: And the reason that 'the grave combines it' is, in fact, due to Ohel, since the cover transmits the Tum'ah onto it.

Clarification: Because the way we discovered it now, it is not fit for anybody in the world to have known of its existence.

Clarification (cont.): Whereas in water it is.

Reason: The reason seems to be because of the principle 'Lev Beis-Din Masneh aleihem' (Beis-Din stipulate that it is in order to do so).

Reason (cont.): Because since they forced him to burn it in front of the Beis-ha'Mikdash in order to embarrass him, they did not trouble him to bring his own wood, and permitted him to use that of Hekdesh.

Extension: Likewise, they made a similar condition, permitting misers to do so (and not everybody) because on account of their miserliness, they will refrain from burning it, and will come to sin.

Extension (cont.): And Davka misers and guests (whom they gave the Din of misers), as the Gemara explains, but nobody else.

Implied Question: And although there is an opinion in the first Perek of Shevu'os (11.) that does not hold of 'Leiv Beis-Din Masneh aleihen' ...

Answer: That pertains exclusively to Korbanos that are Kadosh Kedushas ha'Guf, but when it comes to Kedushas Damim, they too, agree.