Previous daf

1)

(a) Three Onos means three periods of thirty days. If a woman who is pregnant or a Yoledes do not see blood for ninety days, they are no longer Metamei Mei'es Le'es, because the Din of 'Dayah Sha'atah' now takes effect.

(b) According to Levi, who learns that there are two separate Ma'ayanos, what the Beraisa is saying is that if she stops seeing blood even for a very short while, then she can complement however many days are missing from the three Onos (which were not completed during the days of pregnancy) during the time that she is feeding - even if she should see then.

(a) If the Beraisa in which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that 'Dayah Sha'atah' extends beyond the days of Tohar speaks even by a few days, then, according to Rav, who maintains that the blood of both sets of days are from the same Ma'ayan, why should we say 'Dayah Sha'atah', since the Torah now declares this Ma'ayan Tamei?

(b) The Beraisa is speaking, answers the Gemara, when she saw blood, not a few days after the termination of the days of Tohar, but within twenty-four hours. Consequently, even Rav will have to admit that she is not Temei'ah 'Mei'es Le'es'. Why?
Because even if she had actually seen blood twenty-four hours earlier - during her days of Tohar, she would have been Tehorah; so how can we render her Temei'ah retroactively at that time?
What then, is the Chidush?

(c)&(d) The Chidush is that since 'Mei'es Le'es' does not apply, neither does mi'Pekidah li'Pekidah'; which explains why the Gemara could not explain that we are speaking when she saw blood within the time of one Pekidah - because then, there would be no Chidush, according to Rav.

(a) According to Levi, why should a Yoledes be'Zov be Temei'ah according to Beis Hillel, if she counts seven clean days and then sees blood. Since she counted seven clean days, the Ma'ayan of Tum'ah has closed, and what she sees now is from the Ma'ayan of Taharah?

(b) The Gemara's second answer is that the Beraisa speaks when she continued to see into the days of Taharah, so that the Ma'ayan of Tum'ah did not close.

(c) She did indeed count seven clean days. However, we are speaking after the birth of a girl; during the first seven days after the birth she did not see blood, but during the second seven days she did, continuing into the days of Tohar, as we explained.
The Beraisa comes to teach us that nevertheless, the seven clean days that she saw during her days of Tum'ah count as 'Shiv'ah Neki'im'.

5)

(a) We learn from 'Zov Damah' that a woman is a Zavah only if the blood flows on its own, not if it flows due to something else, such as birth-pains.

(b) A woman is a Zavah only if the pains of childbirth stopped at least for one day after she saw Zivus for three consecutive days. If she did not, then the blood is attributed to the birth, and she is Tehorah.

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that the woman must have relief from the pains of childbirth for twenty-four hours - beginning with night and then day, in order to be a Yoledes be'Zov (just like Shabbos, which begins with night). Otherwise, she is Tehorah.

(a) Although, according to Rav, a woman who has birth-pains and sees blood during the days of Zivus is not a Zavah Ketanah, she is nevertheless Temei'ah until night-time.

(b) Shmuel explains the Mishnah to mean that, although she is not a Zavah de'Oraysa, she is nevertheless a Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom mi'de'Rabbanan - just in case she has relief from the pain, and will turn out to be a Zavah Ketanah mi'de'Oraysa.

(c) According to Rav Yitzchak, the Mishnah means that, if she has birth-pains during the days of Nidus, she is a Nidah, in spite of the pains; whereas if she has them during the days of Zivus, she is not Temei'ah at all.

(d) Chananya adds that it is not necessary for the woman to suffer the pains for the entire third day, nor do they need to be at the end of the third day; as long as there were pains any time during the third day (meaning that the relief from the pain did not last for the full duration of the third day, she is considered to be a 'Maksheh Leileid', and will not be a Zavah.

(a) There is more reason to be lenient and to render Tehorah, a 'Zavah' who has pains during childbirth than one who sees be'O'nes, because child-birth itself carries with it the leniency that, after one or two weeks, she is automatically Tehorah, a leniency which is not found by O'nes (it is irrelevant that the Din of O'nes is lenient by a Zav, because we are dealing with a Zavah, and not a Zav).
In addition, it would be a paradox to be lenient by O'nes, and strict by a Yoledes, since there is no bigger O'nes than a Yoledes.

(b) Refer to the brackets in a.

(c) "ve'Tam'ah Shevu'ayim ke'Nidasah" implies, that at child-birth, the woman is Temei'ah like her Nidus - but not like her Zivus, in other words, if she sees blood during her days of Zivus, she does not become a Zavah.

(d) We learn from "Damah", that she is Tehorah only if she has no relief from her pain, but if she does (according to the various opinions cited earlier, then she is indeed Temei'ah).

(a) Rav told Rav Asi before he died, that he had retracted from his Din of one day Nidus for a Zavah who saw whilst suffering the pains child-birth (see 6a) and that Shilo bar Avina, who held like his Rebbe, should be made to retract.

(b) Rav Asi understood Rav to have said, not 'Garyei' (encourage him), but 'Gadyei' (place him in Cheirem, should he refuse).
Shilo bar Avina did not believe Rav Asi, because, he maintained, *he* was a close disciple of Rav, and therefore, had Rav retracted, he would have informed him.

(c) An 'Asisa (which is similar to his name - Asi) de'Nachsha' means a copper mortar, and it was a warning to Shilo to relent.

(d) Shilo replied that Rav Asi should also beware of him, because he was an iron pestle, which could break a copper mortar.

Next daf