Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa says that one relies on the bloodstain of a gentile woman (no mention is made of her having to have ever seen blood before), and even Rebbi Meir, who maintains that, at least she must be fit to see, does not require her to have actually seen. So how can Rav hold of a stringency with which neither of the Tena'im of the Beraisa agrees?

(b) According to the initial wording of the Beraisa, it transpires that Rebbi Meir, who at least requires the gentile woman to be fit to see blood, is more stringent than the Tana Kama, who requires nothing. But it is clear from another Beraisa, that Rebbi Meir is more lenient than the Tana Kama, and not more strict? Therefore we are forced to change the wording of the Tana Kama to read that we only rely on the gentile woman, if we actually know that she has seen blood; On which Rebbi Meir argues that it is not necessary for the gentile her to have actually seen blood, but it is sufficient for her to have reached the age that she could see.

(a) The reason that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel relies on a 'Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom' on her second day, is because she has a Chazakah that her Ma'ayan is open (even though she did not yet see on that day, and even though she will need to watch again tomorrow, on account of this sighting); and the same reason applies to a woman who is counting her seven clean days (even though this sighting will obligate her to start counting all over again).

(b) Rebbi maintains that we can only ascribe the bloodstain to a woman to whom it makes no difference one way or the other (either because she is Temei'ah anyway, or because she will remain Tehorah anyway, but not in the above cases, where ascribing the bloodstain to them affects them adversely, as we explained above).

(c) Even Rebbi will agree that we ascribe the stain to a woman who is a 'Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom' on her *first* day, because she is Temei'ah anyway, and this sighting will not affect her.

(d) Rebbi will also agree that we ascribe the bloodstain to a Yoledes during her days of Tohar, and by a virgin who has not yet seen blood.

(a) Is it not obvious, that if we ascribe the bloodstain to another woman, she is Tehorah and the first woman is Temei'ah? So why the 'Lefichach'?

(b) In fact, *he* only says 'Lefichach', because *Rebbi* says 'Lefichach'.

(c) We might have thought that, since we do not ascribe the bloodstain to the other woman, the woman by whom the bloodstain is found should be Temei'ah, and the other woman should remain Tehorah. Therefore Rebbi needs to add 'Lefichach, Sheteihen Mekulkalos'.

(a) The same as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ascribes the Tum'ah to the Temei'ah (the 'Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom'), so too, will he assume that it was the Tamei man who walked down the Tamei path; and the same as Rebbi does not rely on that by the woman, so too, will he not rely on it by the two paths either.

(b) Rav Ada argues on the grounds that we wrote earlier: because, he says, Rebbi only fails to ascribe the Tum'ah by the case of the Shomeres Yom, because both women are really Tehoros (even though the second woman's Ma'ayan is open, and she requires Tevilah - she may however, Tovel whenever she likes). Consequently, why should we ascribe the Tum'ah to the second woman any more than to the first one? Whereas in the case of the two paths, why should we *not* ascribe the Tum'ah to the man who is Tamei anyway, and to whom it therefore makes no difference?

(c) Rav Chisda argues that also the 'Shomeres Yom ke'Neged Yom' requires Tevilah - in other words, she is Temei'ah - so if Rebbi does not want to attribute the Tum'ah to her there, why should he attribute the Tum'ah to the Tamei man in the case of the two paths?

(d) According to Rav Ada, if a Tahor person and someone who is Safek Tamei went down two paths, one of which was Tamei, we will assume that it is the Safek (who is anyway Tamei mi'Safek) who walked down the Tamei path, just as we would have done had he been Tamei Vaday.

(a) According to Rebbi, we do not even ascribe the bloodstain to the woman who saw blood from her *body* on the previous day (a *Shomeres Yom* etc., on her second day), so how much more so will we not ascribe it to her *bloodstain*.

(b) The Gemara asks, whether, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, we will also ascribe the bloodstain to the woman who became Temei'ah through a bloodstain, or whether, Rabban Shimon only ascribes it to a woman who actually saw blood from her body.

(c) The Gemara rules categorically that even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel will only ascribe a bloodstain to a woman who actually saw blood, but not to one who only became Temei'ah through a bloodstain.

(a) The author of both Beraisos could also be Rebbi, but the first Beraisa which does ascribe the bloodstain to the other womn, speaks when the second woman wore the vest on the first day after seeing the bloodstain on her own garment, whereas the second Beraisa speaks when she wore it on the second day (See Maharshal, who explains that the Gemara's Kashya is not valid according to this answer, only according to the other two).
Or the author of both Beraisos could also be Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; And the Beraisa which *does* ascribe the bloodstain to the second woman, (to render the first one Tehorah) speaks retroactively; but as far as the future is concerned, we do not ascribe the stain to the second woman, and both women are Temei'os.

(b) In any event, we see, at least according to two of the answers, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel *does* ascribe the bloodstain to the second woman, despite the fact that she became Temei'ah only through a bloodstain?

(c) The Gemara amends the Beraisa to read 'Hish'ilah Chalukah le'Nochris O le'Yosheves Al Dam Tohar', Ba'alas Kesem Tolah Bah'.

(a) Rebbi Nechemyah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Niksa la'Aretz Teishev", that a woman who finds blood on the ground where she is sitting is Tehorah, because the groung itself is not Mekabeil Tum'ah.

(b) We might well have said that the Rabbanan would decree Tum'ah on a bloodstain found on the back of an earthenware vessel, because if the bloodstain appeared inside it, it would be Tamei, so Chazal could have decreed the one because of the other, as they often do. The Chidush of Rebbi Chanina is, that according to Rebbi Nechemyah, no such decree was issued.

(c) If bloodstains are found on patches of less than three finger-breadths by three finger-breadths, Rebbi Nechemyah holds that the woman will not be Temei'ah.

(a) If blood is found underneath the innermost woman who is working by the hand-mill, we will declare both women Temei'os, since the woman working on the outside tends to come as close as she can, so that the blood could have come from her. But since the reverse is not true - i.e. the woman closest to the mill, does not move away from it, if blood is found under the outer woman, it must have come from her, and only she will be Temei'ah.

(b) An olive-leaf is not Mekabeil Tum'ah, yet the Tena'im of this Beraisa ruled that the women are Temei'os. So how can Rav rule like Rebbi Nechemyah, when clearly, the Tena'im of this Beraisa, do not follow his opinion?

(c) The Gemara however, cites another Beraisa, which explicitly states that the Rabbanan ruled like Rebbi Nechemyah, and that is obviously opinion which Rav follows.

(a) If blood is found underneath one of three women who are all sleeping in the same bed, then all three are Temei'os.

(b) By 've'Tolos Zu be'Zu', the Mishnah means, that if one of the women was pregnant, or feeding, or old, or a virgin, then we ascribe the blood to her.

(c) If all the women were all of the same status e.g. they were all pregnant, or feeding etc., then they are all Temei'os.

(a) If one of the women examined herself and found that she is Temei'ah, then we ascribe the blood to her, and the other two are Tehoros.

(b) Bar Pada holds that when the man is Chayav Chatas (i.e. the blood was discovered on the Eid immediately), the Taharos with which she was dealing are Temei'os (retroactively, and have to be burnt); but when the man is only Chayav an Asham Taluy, then the Taharos are only Safek Tamei. Consequently, our Mishnah, which is speaking with regard to Taharos (to declare the Taharos which the woman who found herself to be Temei'ah, Temei'os), must be speaking when she examined herself immediately.

(c) Rebbi Oshaya maintains that, even if her husband is Chayav a Chatas, her Taharos are only a Safek (and nevertheless, we ascribe the blood to her).
The reason for the difference is that when she is with her husband, as long as the woman finds the blood immediately, he is Chayav Chatas. Nor does the fact that the blood was not discharged during Tashmish is no proof that she was Tehorah at the time of Tashmish. Why not?
Because the Eiver Tashmish prevented the blood from flowing out.
Whereas in our Mishnah, even if the woman examined herself immediately and discovered that she was Temei'ah, that does not ascertain with certainty, that she is the woman from whom the blood was discharged. Why not? Because if she is, then why was the blood that she found now, not discharged earlier? What prevented it from coming out then? Consequently, she is only a Safek Temei'ah (Nevertheless, since the Tum'ah of 'Mei'es Le'es' regarding Taharos is only mi'de'Rabbanan, we ascribe this Safek to her, and the other women are Tehoros).

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah compares Rebbi Oshaya's Din to a youth who is accompanying an old man on a journey. As long as they have not reached the town, the youth is forced to go at the pace of the old man. The moment however, they reach the town, the youth hurries home, whilst the old man continues at his slow pace. So too, as long as the Eiver Tashmish is present, the blood takes its time in emerging; but the moment the Eiver Tashmish is removed, the blood flows freely.

(b) Abaye compares it to someone who sticks his finger in his eye. As long as the finger is there, the tears cannot flow. As soon as he removes his finger, the tears flow freely.