Previous daf

1)

(a) From "Yitma Shiv'as Yamim" we learn that a Bo'eil Nidah is Tamei for seven days, and not just for the number of days that the *woman* remains Temei'ah.

(b) From "va'Tehi Nidasah Alav" we learn that, like her, he is Metamei people and earthenware vessels.

(c) And from the Pasuk "ve'Chol ha'Mishkav Asher Yishkav Alav Yitma". we learn that the Torah has removed the stringency of a Nidah (presumably from the word "Yitma", as the Gemara said earlier) - i.e. his Mishkav and Moshav are Metamei Adam, but not to be Metamei the clothes that he is wearing.

(d) According to Abaye, we cannot learn "va'Tehi Nidasah Alav" and "ve'Chol ha'Mishkav" as a 'Kelal u'Ferat', because they are not in close juxtaposition. But according to Rava, even if they are not in close juxtaposition, they can in principle, serve as a 'Kelal u'Ferat' - but not here, since the Torah uses the word "ve'Chol", which comes to include (to be more stringent), and not to exclude.

(e) "va'Tehi Nidasah *Alav*" infers a stringency. Consequently, that we cannot compare the Bo'eil to the Nidah, and say that, just as there is no difference by between *her* touching and her Mishkav and Moshav to be Metamei a person together with the clothes that he is wearing, so too should there be no difference by *him* berween his touching something and his Mishkav and Moshav, to say that in both cases, the person that he touches becomes Tamei, but not the clothes that he is wearing - Because that is a lemiency!

3)

(a) Had the Kutim sat seven clean days after every sighting, that would be fine, because then they would sit seven days on yellow blood, in case it was Tamei, and then, when they would see red blood, say on the fourth day, they would again count seven clean days, and so on.
The trouble was that they counted seven days of Nidus from the first time only, as we explained in our Mishnah.

(b) In the second explanation, the problem with the Kuti'os was that they would count the day that they stopped seeing Dam Zivus as the first of the seven clean days, because of the principle 'Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo'. In fact, a woman requires seven *full* days without seeing.

(c) The Gemara wants to say that we cannot count the day that she stops seeing as the first of the seven clean days, because, if so, how can seeing Keri during the seven clean days of a Zav, break one day (to make her count one extra day)? As soon as he sees, he should count the remainder of the day as the one additional day; in which case, the Keri will not have broken anything at all!

(d) That is no proof, the Gemara concludes, because the Torah could be speaking in a case when he sees Keri at the end of the day, just before sunset, so that there is not time to count a part of the day as the one required day.
Nor does it matter how unlikely it is for the Pasuk to be coming to teach us such an unusual case, because, if that is the only way to understand the Pasuk, then so be it (See Tosfos ha'Rosh, Amud Beis d.h. Shavkeih)

4)

(a) The Gemara asks whether a woman who exudes the Zera of her husband, is Temei'ah because she has seen Zera, in which case the sighting will break the seven clean days; or is it only because she touched the Zera of her husband, and touching Tum'ah does not break the seven clean days.

(b) Rava however, asks on this: How many days would one break? Seven? But how can a Poletes be more stringent than the man himself (whose Zera she is seeing), whose Keri only breaks one day, and no more?
Should she break only one day? But the Torah writes "ve'Achar Tithar" - only after seven clean days, can a Zavah attain Taharah, but not if there was even one day of Tum'ah?

(c) The Gemara retorts that just as by a Zav, the Torah insists that he has seven clean days before becoming Tahor, yet if he sees one day of Keri, he only breaks one day (because the Torah's insistence is confined to a sighting of *Zivus* - it is only then that a sighting inevitably breaks all seven days, but not by a sighting of Keri), so too, is the case with a Zavah.

(a) Rav Shmuel must have been a Yerei Shamayim, for the old woman to have wished Rav Papa to be like him.

(b) Rav Papa answered that our Mishnah is speaking about a Shaver (a Talmid-Chacham), whom one would hardly accuse of being Vaday Metamei Terumah.

(c) If our Mishnah is speaking about a Chaver, how can it refer to him as a Bo'eil Nidah?

(d) Rav papa could have established that our Mishnah is speaking about a Kuti who Toveled (so that he has no Din of Vaday Tamei), and then trod on the clothes of a Chaver, and it is the clothes of the Chaver which then touched Terumah. And it also speaks when the Kuti was naked, so we do not worry about his clothes being a Medras for a Chaver.

(a) If we do not know whether or not, a Bas Kuti has undertaken to follow the path of a Bas Yisrael or not, she has the Din of a Kutis. We know this from Rebbi Yossi, who argues with the Tana Kama, and says that a Stam Kutis has the Din of a Yisre'eilis, from which we can infer that, according to the Tana Kama, a Stam Kutis has the Din of a Kutis.

(b) The Tzedoki was talking with a Kohen Gadol in the public street, when some spittle fell onto the Kohen Gadol's cloak. The frustrated Kohen Gadol went to asked the Tzedoki's wife whether she treated the first sighting of yellow blood (like in our Mishnah) as Dam Nidus or not. She replied that the wives of the Tzedokim were afraid of the Perushim and that they showed their blood to the Chachamim.
Rebbi Yossi, following is ruling in our Mishnah - replied that a Stam Kuti (equivalent to the Tzedokim in this regard) has the Din of a Bas Yisrael.

(c) They were not concerned about the spittle of the Tzedoki, because he was a Chaver.