Answer: It was not shortly before her Veses.

Question: Does her husband know the laws?

If he does, he should not bring any Korbanos!

He is Ones (blameless) for relations, and he sinned b'Mezid by withdrawing.

If he does not know the laws, he brings only one Korban!

He is exempt for relations (it was Ones), and he is liable for withdrawing (he was Shogeg).

Answer (Rava): Really, it was shortly before her Veses. He knows that relations are forbidden then. He does not know that one may not withdraw an erect Ever.

(Rava): Mishnayos teach the obligation to bring a Korban for relations and withdrawing!

Withdrawing - (Mishnah): If a woman told her husband during relations that she became Nidah, if he withdraws immediately he is liable.

Relations - (Mishnah): If a man found blood on the cloth he used to clean his Ever after relations, he and his wife are Teme'im (she is Nidah, and he had relations with a Nidah), and each must bring a Korban.

Suggestion: The case is, they had relations shortly before her Veses. They are liable for relations.

Rejection (Rav Ada bar Masnah): No, it was not shortly before her Veses. They are liable for withdrawing. (Noda b'Yehudah - the case is, she told him to withdraw. Chasam Sofer - we could have asked why she is liable, for she is blameless! Rather, we ask a better question below (e).)

Question: Why should a second Mishnah teach liability for withdrawing?

Answer: The latter Mishnah is needed to teach the law when she found blood on the cloth she used to clean herself (shortly but not immediately) after relations;

Then, he is doubtfully Tamei, and they do not bring a Korban (perhaps she became Nidah after relations).

Once it teaches the law when she finds blood on her cloth, it also teaches about when he finds blood on his.

Question (against Rav Ada - Ravina): You cannot establish the Mishnah not just before her Veses, and the liability is for withdrawing;

It says that blood was found on his cloth. This implies that before this, they did not know that she became Nidah!

If liability is for withdrawing, they must have known that she became Nidah!

(Rava): Ravina is correct!

Objection (Rav Ada - Beraisa): This (the case of the Mishnah) is the Mitzvas Aseh of Nidah to which the Korbanos for Hora'ah apply.

According to Ravina (they are liable for relations), it should say 'this is the Lav... !

Answer (Rava): If there is such a Beraisa, it is abbreviated, and it means as follows. This (the case of the Mishnah) is the Lav of Nidah to which the Korbanos for a mistaken ruling apply;

If a woman told her husband during relations that she became Nidah, if he withdraws immediately he is liable. This is the Mitzvas Aseh of Nidah to which the Korbanos for a mistaken ruling apply.

(Mishnah): If he withdraws immediately he is liable.

Question: What should he do?

Answer (Rav Huna): He should stick his toenails in the ground (and not move the Ever) until the erection ceases, then withdraw.

Inference (Rava): We may infer that if one has forbidden relations with a limp Ever, he is exempt.

If he would be liable, we would have to say that he is exempt (in our case) because he was Ones;

If so, he would be exempt even if he withdrew immediately!

Rejection (Abaye): Really, if one has forbidden relations with a limp Ever, he is liable;

One is exempt (in our case) because he was Ones;

He must withdraw with minimal pleasure. If he withdraws immediately, he is liable for getting extra pleasure!

Question (Rabah bar Chanan): If indeed relations with a limp Ever are considered relations, and there is an exemption for withdrawing later but not immediately, the Mishnah should have taught this along with the exemption for leaving the Mikdash (on the shortest path, and not on a longer one)!

Answer (Abaye): The Mishnah did not teach them together because they are contrary to each other!

In the Mikdash, the exemption is for the shortest path, and not a longer one;

The exemption for withdrawing from a Nidah is if he delays, and not if he withdraws immediately!

Question (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): If Abaye exempts him due to Ones, it was not shortly before her Veses;

However, Abaye said (17b) that he brings two Korbanos. It must have been shortly before her Veses!

Answer: That teaching of Abaye did not refers to the case of the Mishnah.

Question (R. Yonason ben Yosi): What is the Lav forbidding relations with a Nidah?

Objection (R. Shimon ben Yosi): Obviously, it is "v'El Ishah b'Nidas Tum'asah Lo Sikrav"!

Correction: Rather, if a woman told her husband during relations that she became Nidah, what forbids him to withdraw immediately?

Answer (Chizkiyah): "U'Sehi Nidasah Alav."

Question: That is an Aseh. What is the Lav?

Answer (Rav Papa): It is "Lo Sikrav" (the above verse);

"Lo Sikrav" can also mean 'do not separate', like it says "Kerav Elecha Al Tigash Bi."

(Beraisa - R. Yoshiyah): "V'Hizartem... mi'Tum'asam" forbids a man to his wife shortly before her Veses.

Question: How much in advance must he separate?

Answer (Rabah): He must separate the night or day (from morning until evening) when she is due to menstruate.

(R. Yochanan): Anyone who does not separate from his wife shortly before her Veses, even if his sons are like Aharon's sons, they will die prematurely;

Right after "v'Hizartem...", it discusses the death of Aharon's sons.

(R. Chiya bar Aba): Anyone who separates from his wife shortly before her Veses, he will merit to have sons;

Just after "Lehavdil Bein ha'Tamei u'Vein ha'Tahor", it says "v'Yaldah Zachar."

(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): Such a person merits that his children will be qualified to give Halachic rulings - (it says earlier, Vayikra 10:10-11) "Lehavdil... u'Lhoros."

(R. Chiya bar Aba): Anyone who makes Havdalah over wine after Shabbos, he will merit to have sons. It says (Vayikra 10:10) "Lehavdil Bein ha'Kodesh u'Vein ha'Chol", similar to "Lehavdil Bein ha'Tamei u'Vein ha'Tahor", which is followed by "v'Yaldah Zachar."

(R. Binyamin bar Yefes): Anyone who has relations modestly, he will merit to have sons. It says "v'Hiskadishtem vi'Hyisem Kedoshim", and (soon afterwards) "v'Yaldah Zachar."

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): "Sheretz Tamei v'Nelam"...

Question: R. Akiva agrees that he brings a Korban only if he forgot the Tum'ah. What do they argue about?

Answer #1 (Chizkiyah): They argue about w hether or not he must know what made him Tamei.

R. Eliezer holds that he brings a Korban only if he knows how he became Tamei, e.g. through a rodent or a Neveilah. R. Akiva holds that it suffices that he knew that he became Tamei.

Ula agrees with Chizkiyah.

Question (Ula): Here, R. Eliezer says that he brings a Korban only if he knows how he became Tamei;

Contradiction (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If one ate Chelev or Nosar (and is unsure which), in either case he must bring a Chatas! Likewise, if he did Melachah on Shabbos or Yom Kipur, or if he had relations with a Nidah (his wife) or his sister (and is unsure which), he brings a Chatas.

R. Yehoshua says, "Hoda Elav Chataso Asher Chata Bah" teaches that he must know what he transgressed.

Answer (Ula): Regarding (the Chatas of a commoner), it says "Chata v'Havi" - he brings a Chatas whenever he knows that he sinned (even if he does not know which sin of Kares it was);

Regarding Tum'ah, it already said "b'Chol Davar Tamei." "Oh b'Nivlas Sheretz Tamei" is extra!

This teaches that he brings a Korban only if he knows how he became Tamei (through a Sheretz or Neveilah... )

R. Akiva argues. Since the verse needed to mention Behemah and Chayah to teach Rebbi's Gezeirah Shavah (to reveal that the verse discusses Tum'ah of the Mikdash or Kodshim), it also mentioned Sheretz.

(Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): Any Parshah in the Torah that was repeated, it is possible that it teaches only one Chidush (we need not expound every repeated word).