Previous daf

1)

(a) The Machlokes Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan in our Mishnah is confined to Tum'as Nidah; everyone agrees that there is no Tum'as Leidah on such a miscarriage, because, if there were, why would the Rabbanan require blood together with the piece of flesh?

(b) If she miscarries something that resembles a peel etc., we put in in water; if it melts, it is a sign that it is blood, and she is Temei'ah. If it does not, then it is not blood, and she remains Tehorah.

(c) And if she miscarries something that resembles a fish or a large insect and there is no blood, then she is Tehorah according to all opinions, because it is neither a form that anyone holds is Metamei because of Tum'as Leidah, nor is it blood.

(a) If a woman gives birth to a bird or to any form of animal she is Temei'ah Leidah, according to Rebbi Meir. If it is a male then she must keep the days of Tum'ah and Teharah accordingly, and the same if it is a female. If she is not sure which it is, then she must keep the Chumros of both - the fourteen days of Tum'ah of a female, and the thirty-three days of Taharah of a male.

(b) According to the Rabbanan, a woman is only Temei'ah Leidah if she gives birth to something which has a human form.

(a) Why does the Beraisa include a yellow or white piece of flesh in the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan? As far as the Rabbanan are concerned, if the woman is Tehorah after miscarrying a red or a black piece of flesh, then is it not obvious that she will also be Tehorah if she miscarries a yellow or white piece?
So the Beraisa must have inserted it to inform us that Rebbi Yehudah is Metamei even though they are not among the four kinds of Tamei Mar'os, which will leave us with a Kashya on Shmuel.

(b)&(c) Rebbi Yochanan maintains that if the piece resembles one of the four kinds of blood, she is Temei'ah (even according to the Rabbanan), and if it does not, then she is Tehorah (even according to Rebbi Yehudah); When do they argue, when we do not know what she miscarried - Rebbi Yehudah follows the majority of pieces, which are the color of blood, whereas the Rabbanan do not.

Now, according to Rebbi Yochanan, why does the Beraisa include red and black in the colors over which they argue? According to Rebbi Yehudah, is it not self-understood that, if she is Temei'ah for a white and yellow piece, then how much more so for a red and black one?
So it must be to teach us that the Rabbanan are Metaher even if the piece is red or black?

(d) If a woman has pain during the days of Zivus (the eleven days between Nidus and Nidus), and sees blood for two days prior to having a miscarriage. Then she has a miscarriage, but does not know what she miscarried, there are three possibilities: Either she is Temei'ah Leidah (in which case she will not be a Zavah, since she did not have a relief between the pain and the birth), or she is Temei'ah Zivus (if she saw blood, but did not give birth to a baby with a human form) or she is Tehorah (if the baby neither had a human form nor did she see blood). According to the Tana Kama, she is Tamei mi'Safek, she brings a Korban (to enable her to eat Kodshim - just in case she is Temei'ah Leidah or Zivus), but the Kohen may not eat it.

Rebbi Yehoshua holds that she brings a Korban which the Kohanim do eat. Why? Because it is impossible for a woman's womb to open (either to give birth or to have a miscarriage) without an emission of blood. So she is Vaday Temei'ah (though a Safek whether Leidah or a Zavah). Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua, and that is why he says that even if we do not see blood together with the piece of flesh, we can assume that there was blood; whereas the Rabbanan follow the opinion of the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehoshua: namely, that it is possible for a woman to have a dry birth. Consequently, it is necessary to actually see blood with the piece of flesh before we can declare it Tamei.

4) The second Lashon, unlike the first, does not quote Rebbi Yochanan as arguing with Shmuel (to say that Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan only argue in a case when we do not know what she miscarried etc.) Consequently, the Gemara asks from the Beraisa which describes their Machlokes as pertaining to all types of blood, even not of the four colors, is only a Kashya on Shmuel, but not on Rebbi Yochanan.
In fact, it is Rebbi Yochanan who now answers (not Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, like in the first Lashon) that they argue over 'Efshar li'Pesichas Kever be'Lo Dam'.

5)

(a) According to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah, blood *with the piece* is Tamei because of Dam Nidus, but not blood *in the piece*. Sumchus however, agrees with the Rabbanan that 'Efshar li'Pesichas Kever be'Lo Dam'. He adds that even if there is blood *in the piece*, she is also Temei'ah.

(b) Rav Acha adds that even if there is no blood, but the flesh inside is red, she is also Temei'ah because of Dam Nidus.

(c) According to Rebbi Binyamin, she may even be Temei'ah Leidah, if she tears the piece open, and finds a bone inside - provided the piece itself is white.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai holds like Sumchus, but he adds that there must be a lot of blood inside, otherwise she will not be Temei'ah, even because of Nidus.

(a) We learn from "(bi')Vesarah" that, even when the blood is still inside the womb (in the Perozdor), the woman is Temei'ah (unlike by a Zav and a Ba'al Keri, who only become Tamei once the source of Tum'ah has left their body).
Then, from the extra "bi"(Vesarah), we learn that only blood that is in her flesh is Tamei, but not blood that she takes out in a tube before it reached the Perozdor.

(b) Blood gathered in a piece of flesh, which, according to Rebbi Yochanan, is Tamei, is different. Why?

Because it is natural for blood to gather in a piece of flesh (Consequently, we apply the principle 'Min be'Mino Eino Chotzetz', meaning that the flesh which divides between the blood and the outside, is not considered a Chatzitzah. A tube, on the other hand, is not a natural phenomenon; therefore, it is considered a Chatzitzah.

(a) Yes, Rebbi Eliezer does say exactly the same as the Tana Kama; that is because he *is* the Tana Kama, and we must read the Beraisa '*she*'Rebbi Eliezer Omer' etc.

(b) Initially, the Gemara learnt that, according to the Tana Kama, the blood inside the piece of flesh is Tehorah because the Torah has revealed that the flesh is a Chatzitzah, and that therefore the blood is Dam Tahor. Consequently, the same will apply to blood that is taken in a tube. If however, there are cracks in her flesh ('Im Yesh Imah Dam'), and the blood is gathered there, touching the walls of the womb, she is Temei'ah.
The Rabbanan, on the other hand, maintain that the blood in the piece of flesh is not Dam Nidus, not because of a Gezeiras Hakasuv (which indicates that it is a Chatzitzah), but because blood not in the actual womb itself, is not Dam Nidus - and the same applies to blood in the cracks of flesh. But blood that one takes from the womb in a tube is Tamei.

(c) According to Abaye, they argue whether it is natural for a woman to see blood in the cracks in the flesh. The Torah declares Tahor blood indside a piece of flesh, but how about blood inside the cracks?
The Tana Kama holds that it is natural for a woman to see Tamei blood in the cracks in her flesh (so that is included in "bi'Vesarah"), whereas the Chachamim hold that it is not.

(d) Rava explains that they both agree that the blood blood in the piece of flesh is Tehorah as far as Dam nidus is concerned. However, the Tana Kama (Rebbi Eliezer) holds that all blood which comes from the Mekor, is at least Metamei Taharos that touch it for one day. But the Chachamim maintain that, either blood is Metamei because of Dam Nidus, or it is not Metamei at all.