Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra, even if the bloodstain does not total three ki'Gerisin plus, she is still Temei'ah (because we suspect that maybe she saw on two Bein ha'Shamashos, or once during the day, and the second one during the following Bein ha'Shemashos).

(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, Bein ha'Shemashos is the half Mil or so (see Gilyon ha'Shas) walking time (nine minutes) from sunset leading upto night.
Whereas according to Rebbi Yossi, it is no more than the split second before night (which, at this stage, we presume begins as soon as that of Rebbi Yehudah ends).

(c) Since she examined herself during the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah, and there was no blood, when later on, she discovers two ki'Gerisin of blood on her vest, she does not need to contend with having seen during Bein ha'Shemashos to combine with one other sighting, to render her a Zavah. But, according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra, who holds like Rebbi Yossi, she *does* have to contend with this, because maybe she saw during the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yossi, like whom he holds.

(d) She is obligated to examine herself for the entire Bein ha'Shamashos period.

(a) If Rebbi means that he agrees with Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra when she did not examine herself during the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yossi, but only during the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah, that would infer that Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra himself speaks even when she examined herself during the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah (and that even there, she would be a Zavah). But why should that be? If she examined herself throughout the combined Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi, there is no reason to contend with her having seen during Bein ha'Shemashos.

(b) According to the contention that the Chachamim when she did not examine herself at all, Rebbi will hold that, as long as she examined herself during the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah, she is not a Zavah. Because he considers the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yossi definite night, and not a Safek.

(c) When Rebbi says 'And the words of the Chachamim when she *did*, he cannot mean that he agrees with them when she examined herself during the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah, but not of Rebbi Yossi, because that would infer that their opinion extends even to when she did not examine herself at all (and that even there, she is not a Zavah). But why not, since she did failed to examine herself at all during Bein ha'Shemashos, why should we not contend le'Chumra that perhaps she saw during Bein ha'Shemashos?
So we have to explain that, what Rebbi means is that he agrees with the Chachamim when she examined herself during the Bein ha'Shemashos of both Rebbi Yehudah and of Rebbi Yossi. But, had she not examined herself during the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yossi, we *would* be Choshesh, and she *would* be a Zavah. This means that Rebbi considers the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yossi a Safek. Bur did we not infer from his first statement that he considers Rebbi Yossi's Bein ha'Shamashos to be night.

(d) We are therefore forced to re-learn Rebbi's words, and to explain that what he meant was, that the words of Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra (who considers her a Zavah) appeal to the Rabbanan when she was not Bodek at all, and the words of the Rabbanan (who say that she is not a Zavah) appeal to Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra when she was Bodek during both Bein ha'Shemashos. Their argument, as we explained earlier, is when she made a Bedikah during the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah, but not of Rebbi Yossi.

(a) If Rebbi agrees with Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra when she examined herself during the Bein ha'Shamashos of Rebbi Yehudah but not of Rebbi Yossi, then that would imply that Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra (whose initial statement in this Beraisa is that he does *not* contend with a sighting Bein ha'Shemashos - although Rebbi claims that he heard from him otherwise), is not Choshesh if she was not Bodek at all! But how can that be?
So we must explain Rebbi to mean that he agrees with Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra, when she was Bodek during the Bein ha'Shemashos of both Rebbi Yehudah and of Rebbi Yossi. Which means that Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra himself will not be Choshesh, if she examined herself during the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah only, but not of Rebbi Yossi. So he considers the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yossi to be night.
But did we not prove earlier that, in his opinion, the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yossi is a Safek (since this was his very bone of contention with the Tana Kama in the previous Beraisa)?

(b) If not for Rebbi, we would answer that, in the first Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra is speaking when she examined herself during the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah but not of Rebbi Yossi (as we explained); and the second Beraisa when she examined herself during both Bein ha'Shemashos.

(c) According to Rebbi, we will have to explain that Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra in the second Beraisa incorporates the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yossi in that of Rebbi Yehudah - in other words, the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yossi takes place during the last moment of Rebbi Yehudah's Bein ha'Shemashos. Consequently, since she examined herself during the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah, she automatically examined herself during the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yossi, and the stain that she subsequently found cannot have emerged during Bein ha'Shemashos.
Whereas, in the first Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra holds that the Bein ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yossi begins only after that of Rebbi Yehudah terminates, and she examined herself only during the Beis ha'Shemashos of Rebbi Yehudah, but not during that of Rebbi Yossi.

4)

(a) If a woman sees a bloodstain, according to Rebbi, she is Temei'ah retroactively, which means that she must be Metam'ah everything that she touched, both Kodshim and Taharos, since the last time that she washed the garment.

(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar agrees with Rebbi as regards Kodshim, but not as regards Chulin, because, he says, the stains should not be more stringent than the actual sightings, which are only Metamei retroactively going back twenty-four hours (and not to the last laundering even when it is more than twenty-four hours earlier).

(c) How can Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar give his reason as 'the stains should not be more stringent than the actual sightings, when he himself, admits that the stains by Kodshim are more stringent than the sightings?

(d) What Rebbi Elazar ben Azarya actually says, is that not even by Kodshim, is she Metam'ah retroactively, in order that the stains should not be more stringent than the sightings.

(a) According to Rebbi, if she sees blood within twenty-four hours of finding a bloodstain, she only has to reckon a Mei'es le'Es retroactively from the time that she saw blood, and not from the time of the bloodstain.

(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar agrees with that when she sees *before* nightfall, but when her sighting is *after* nightfall, then, he maintains, she is Metam'ah the garment retroactively from the time that she washed it.

(c) According to Ravina, Rebbi prefers his own opinion to that of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, because he is more lenient than Rebbi Shimon, and, since stains are only mi'de'Rabbanan, it is appropriate to be lenient.

(d) According to Rav Nachman, Rebbi was saying that he prefers the opinion of Shimon ben Elazar, who is more lenient as regards Zivus, because, according to him, should she see blood after the nightfall following her bloodstain, we do not connect her bloodstain to the sighting. That means that we only count her days of Nidus from the sighting. Should she subsequently see again on the seventh day after the previous sighting, this will be the last day of Nidus, and she will not need to watch the following day; also, even if she sees two more days, they will not combine with that sighting to make her a Zavah.
Whereas according to Rebbi, the blood that she sees after nightfall will combine with the bloodstain. Consequently, her Nidus will terminate one day earlier, so that, when she sees on the seventh day (the eighth day after the bllodstain, that will be the first day of Zivus. Consequently, she will be required to watch the next day, and, if should she see twice on the next two days, she will be a Zavah.

(a) Rebbi Zeira's Sha'aleh was, whether if, following a bloodstain, the woman needs to make a Bedikah at the end of the seventh day before she Tovels, in order to finish her days of Tum'ah in Taharah (known as Hefsek Taharah.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue over Rebbi's Din: whether connecting the sighting after nightfall with the bloodstain of before, only applies if she made a Bedikah at the end of the seventh day (Hefsek Taharah) - which means that she had in mind to link the sighting to the bloodstain , but if no Bedikah was made, then we say that she had in mind to count the sighting independently. That is the opinion of Resh Lakish. Or whether like Rebbi Yochanan says, it makes no difference whether she made a Bedikah or not, since the connection of the sighting to the bloodstain is not dependent upon her thoughts or intentions.

(c) In any event, we see that it was customary to make a Bedikah on the seventh day after the bloodstain (otherwise, there would be no case for Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish to argue over), thereby resolving Rebbi Zeira's Sha'aleh.

(a) A woman who sees blood during Bein ha'Shemashos of the eleventh day of Zivus is a Safek last day of Zivus, who will be obligated to watch the next day for Zivus. Also, should she see blood for the next two days, she will be a Zavah. But she is also a Safek first day of Nidus. Consequently, she will have to keep seven days of Nidus whether she sees again or not.

(b) Should she see again on the seventh day, she will have to keep all the Chumros of the first day of Nidus (in case the first sighting was the end of Zivus), and of the first day of Zivus (in case it was the beginning of Nidus).