Previous daf

1)

(a) Since blood seen be'Koshi' cannot render a woman Temei'ah, perhaps it should not break her seven clean days either.

(b) Seeing blood be'Ones, which breaks the seven clean days, even though it does make the woman Temei'ah the first two times, is not a good precedent. Why not?
Because O'nes can cause Tum'ah, if not the first two times, at least the third time, when she becomes obligated to bring a Korban.

(c) According to Rebbi Eliezer, who maintains that O'nes is not effective to make a Zav Tamei, even as regards a Korban, Rava never posed his Sha'aleh - since Rebbi Eliezer will learn 'Koshi' from 'Ones' which breaks a Zavah's seven clean days, even though it does have the power to cause Tum'ah; The Sha'aleh is only according to the Rabbanan.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer says expressly what we just wrote in his name, because, in a Beraisa, he says the third time that a Zav sees, he must be examined (that his sighting was not be'Ones), and, if it was, he is Patur from a Korban; but not the fourth, which does not need to be examined, because, even if it was be'Ones, it will still break the seven clean days.
So we see that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, even a sighting which does not lead to Tum'ah, nevertheless breaks the seven clean days.

3)

(a) Rava maintains that even though birth does not break the seven clean days, if she does not see blood during that time, they are nevertheless included in the seven clean days.

(b) Since the Beraisa writes that Tum'ah should not break the seven days, we are obligated to say that the days of Tum'as Leidah are included in the seven clean days, because, if they were not, then we would have days of Tum'ah interrupting the seven clean days.

(c) According to Abaye, it is only Tum'as *Zivus* that may not interrupt the seven clean days; as far as other types of Tum'ah is concerned, such as Tum'as Leidah, it doesn't matter.

(a) Abaye simply erases '"mi'Zovah" ve'Lo mi'Leidasah' from the text of the Beraisa, since according to him, the days of Leidah are not counted in the clean days.

(b) Rava however, objects, on the grounds that, if one erases '"mi'Zovah" ve'Lo mi'Leidasah', the Derashah of '"mi'Zavah", ve'Lo mi'Nega'ah' alone is not a Chidush, since we already know *that* from a Zav - from '"mi'Zovo", ve'Lo mi'Nega'o' (and we would learn a Zavah from a Zav).

(c) Abaye however, maintains that we cannot learn a Zavah from a Zav (because a Zavah is not Metamei be'O'nes, like a Zav is), nor a Zav from a Zavah (because a Zavah is not Metamei with three sightings in two days, like a Zav is - only in three). Therefore, had the Torah written only the one, we would have said that the other one is required to wait until after Tum'as Tzara'as has passed as well.

5)

(a) Abaye learns that when the Beraisa obligates a Yoledes be'Zov to sit seven clean days, it means 'clean from Leidah' (after the days of Tum'as Leidah have passed), as well as from blood. Whereas according to Rava, it means clean from blood exclusively.

(b) 'ki'Yemei Nidasah' - In he same way as the days of Nidah cannot bring to Zivus, and cannot bring to seven clean days, so too, the days of Leidah cannot bring to Zivus and cannot bring to seven clean days.

(c) Rava explains that the author of this Beraisa is Rebbi Eliezer, who will hold that the days of birth break the seven clean days, in the same way as the sighting of an O'nes.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer tends to learn what is possible even from what is impossible - like by the Korban Pesach, which, in his opinion, can only come from Chullin, just like the Pesach Mitzrayim, which was not brought from money of Ma'aser Sheini, in spite of the fact that there was no Ma'aser Sheini in Mitzrayim, with which to purchase it.
And besides, we are learning a Yoledes from Nidah through a Hekesh, on which cannot ask any Kashyos. When it comes to a Gezeirah Shavah, on which one can ask Kashyos, Rebbi Eliezer may also agree that we do not learn the possible from the impossible).

(a) According to Rebbi Chanina, a woman who has relief from the blood as well as from the pain is Tehorah. Why?
Because her blood stopping, is a sign that her sighting of blood was not a result of Zivus, but of the pangs of birth.

(b) He gives a Mashal to a King who goes out with his troops; everybody knows that all the troops in sight are the King's troops. So too, when the birth pangs arrive, all the signs are the signs of birth.
Rav Chisda argues that surely, as the King approaches, one expects to see *more* of the King's troops, not *less*. So that, had the sighting of blood been due to the birth, there should have been *more* blood; so when there is less blood, it cannot be a sign of the birth.

(c) Rebbi Chanina deduces from Rebbi Yehoshua that, if there had been relief from both the blood and the pain, then she would be Tehorah - a Kashya on Rav Chisda.
Rav Chisda answers that Rebbi Yehoshua is not coming to teach us an inference, but a Chidush. Had there been no pain and no blood, then it would be obvious that she is Temei'ah (just as Rav Chisda explained in his counter-argument in the previous answer). Rebbi Yehoshua is therefore coming to add that even if there *is* blood, she is nevertheless Temei'ah because the pain ceased, a sure sign that the blood was a result of the Zivus, and not of the birth.
Had Rebbi Yehoshua not told us this, we may have thought that seeing as she had pain for three days, she is Tehorah, because the blood is still the result of the pangs of child-birth, and the reason that she seemed to have relief from the pain, is because her sickness was so acute, that she became numb to the pain ('Tunba Nakit').

(a) In order to be a Yoledes be'Zov, one would not need three days of pain plus one day of relief (assuming that is, that the woman saw blood for the duration of the three days).

(b) The Gemara therefore amends the Beraisa to read that either she suffered pains for three days, and then, on the fourth day, she enjoyed relief from both the pains and the blood (a Kashya on Rebbi Chanina, in whose opinion she is Tehorah), or she saw for two days *with* pains, and on the third day, *without*.

(c) Rebbi Chanina leaves the Beraisa intact: according to him, the Beraisa is telling us that if she had pains for the three days that she saw blood, but at the end of the three days, she felt relief from the pains, and the relief continued for twenty-four hours, she is nevertheless Temei'ah (even though she had pains for part of the third day), a Stam Beraisa not like Chananya (see 36b), in whose opinion she would be Tehorah.

(a) When Rebbi Meir says forty or fifty days of pain, he means a maximum of forty days for a healthy woman, and fifty, for a woman who is sick.

(b) Rav adds that the pains of childbirth render the woman Tehorah, not only for the duration of the actual Zivus, but also during the days that belong to the Zivus - i.e. the seven days that follow it (because the Torah only precludes the days of Nidus from this leniency, but not the days that belong to the Zivus).

(c) Rav Ada bar Ahavah (explaining the opinion of Rav) goes even further. According to him, the concession incorporates even the days *after* the seven subsequent days - even *they* are considered as belonging to the Zivus. Why?
Because, if she were to see blood during the seven clean days, she would need to start counting all over again. Consequently, it is only during the days of Nidus that the woman is not effected by the pains of child-birth. But a Zavah remains Tehorah indefinitely, as long as she does not feel relief in the prescribed manner before she gives birth. If she does, then and only then, will she be a Yoledes be'Zov.

(a) According to Rebbi Levi, how is it possible to have forty or fifty consecutive days of Koshi, without there being days of Nidus in between? During the days of Nidus, she will be Temei'ah, according to him?

(b) Rebbi Meir does mean that she is Tehorah for the entire duration of the forty or the fifty days, answers Rebbi Levi ; What Rebbi Meir is referring to, is the days of Zivus that occur in the middle.