Previous daf

1)

(a) Shmuel says that the head of a Nefel does not exempt the one who comes after him from the Bechorah.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan says that if the head is included with the rest of the body, then we do not require the majority of the body, because as soon as the head emerges, the baby is considered born.

(c) According to the first Lashon, they argue by a baby that emerges cut up - it is there that Rebbi Elazar holds that we do not contend with the head, but a baby which emerges whole, even he agrees that as soon as the head emerges, the baby is considered born - 'ha'Rosh Poter bi'Nefalim', not like Shmuel.

(d) The difference between the two Leshanos is that, according to the first Lashon, Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Yochanan refer to 'Mechutach' - the case in the Mishnah.
Whereas, in the second Lashon, where their argument is independent of the Mishnah, they are referring to a whole baby, like Shmuel.

(a) 'Yatza Mechutach O Mesuras', suggests that when the baby emerges Mechutach, it is not Mesuras, but ke'Tikno (head first); and nevertheless, the Mishnah requires Rov, and the head is not sufficient - a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan, in whose opinion the head alone is sufficient.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan initially amends the Mishnah to read 'Mechutach *u*'Mesuras' etc.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan finally amends the Mishnah to read 'Yatza Mechutach O Shaleim, ve'Zeh ve'Zeh Mesuras, mi'she'Yatza Rubo, Harei Hu ki'Yelud'.

4)

(a) The Tana Kama says that if the baby emerges cut up and feet first, it is a baby the moment most of the baby has emerged; but if it emerged feet first, then it is considered born as soon as the head emerges, to exempt the next baby from the Bechorah (like Rebbi Yochanan).

(b) Rebbi Yossi says that we contend with the head only if it emerges head first, but in the form a baby that could live (not alive, but whole) and not cut up,- like Rebbi Elazar ben Arach holds in the first Lashon (see 1c)

(c) According to Rebbi Yossi, as soon as the sides of the head emerge, it is considered born, and according to others, it is the high part of the head above the back of the neck (known as 'the horns of the head') that determines the birth of the baby.

(a) If a woman who miscarried, but is uncertain as to what she miscarried, she must contend with the days of Tum'ah of a male and of a female, as well as the Tum'ah of Nidus.

(b) It is not at first clear why the Mishnah needs to mention the days of Tum'ah of a male (sinde there are anyway no days of Taharah), since they are absorbed in the days of Tum'ah for a female.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that a woman who miscarries whilst crossing a river, but does not know for certain exactly what she miscarried, must bring her Korban, which is eaten.

(b) Our Mishneh contends with the possibility of a woman who does not know what she miscarried being a Nidah, only when she had no Chazakah of being pregnant, whilst Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi is speaking about a woman who had a Chezkas Me'uberes.

(c) If a pregnant animal left in the morning, and returned in the evening empty, the next baby to be born is a Safek Bechor, inferring that we do not assume the first baby to have been a live one on account of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's Chazakah.

(d) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains that in this case, the Chazakah that most mothers give birth to proper babies does not apply. Why not?
Because had the birth been a regular one, the animal would have discharged a sticky substance the previous day; and since this animal failed to do so, the Chazakah that the baby is not a proper one over-rides that of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

7)

(a) The woman is permitted to her husband on the eve of the thirty-fifth day.

(b) She requires ninety-five Tevilos according to Beis Shamai and thirty-five according to Beis Hillel. They both agree that 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah Mitzvah' (it is a Mitzvah to Tovel as soon as the time of Tevilah arrives).

(c) During the first week, she is forbidden to her husband - perhaps she gave birth, even if it was to a boy; during the second week, she is forbidden - perhaps she gave birth to a girl. And the third week - perhaps she gave birth to a girl on the third day of Zivus (but without pain, so that she is actually a Zavah, though she is unable to count seven clean days until after the fourteen days of Tum'as Leidah are over).
Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina asks on Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, that, if, as he maintains, there is always a Chezkas Leidah, then why should she not be permitted during the fourth week, when she did not see blood. Never mind that she saw blood every day of the previous week; that will definitely have been Dam Tohar - unless we contend with the possibility that she did not give birth, not like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi?

(d) Ravin however, fails to understand the Kashya. Why" Because we also have to suspect that maybe the baby was born some time *before* the day of her return. In which case, it is possible that the days of Taharah have already terminated by the fourth week.

(a) Having just ascertained that we have to contend with the birth having taken place some time before, when she saw in the fourth week, we had to treat each sighting as a Safek end of Leidah (part of the days of Taharah), Safek beginning of Nidah. In the latter case, she will have to keep seven days of Nidus (mi'Safek), incorporating the entire fifth week.

(b) Even if she gave birth at the last moment before her return, the days of Tum'ah will have terminated after fourteen days, so that each day during the third week can only be a question of the last day of the seven clean days of Zivus (in case she was a Yoledes be'Zov). And the Tevilah of Zivus is permitted by day. Consequently, we need to understand why she is not permitted on the twenty-first day - after she has been to the Mikveh. However, she is not permitted then, because this Tana holds like Rebbi Shimon, who forbids Tashmish on the seventh day, in case she sees again after Tashmish, in which case, she will have been forbidden retroactively.

(c) She really would be permitted on the following night. But we are speaking when she saw again at night - in fact, whenever the Beraisa speaks about the weeks that she sees, it means that she sees each night of those weeks.

(a) A Yoledes Tovels by night, whereas a Zavah may Tovel even by day.

(b) During the second week, she Tovels every night, in case she gave birth to a girl, and each night might just be the last night of her fourteen days of Tum'ah. On the other hand, she may have given birth to a boy be'Zov, and each day of the second week could be the final day of her seven clean days. Consequently, she is obligated to Tovel each day (since Beis Hillel holds 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah Mitzvah').

(c) During the first week, she must Tovel each night, in case it is the last night of the days of Tum'ah. She does not, however, require Tevilah by day, because of the suspicion that she may have given birth be'Zov, but some days earlier, so that now is the last of the clean days. Why not? Because we only contend with seven days that were counted before us, but not in a case like this, when they were a Safek, and she was not in front of us.

(d) During the third week, she must Tovel every day in case she gave birth be'Zov, and each day may be the last day of her seven clean days.

(a) Beis Shamai add all the days after she has been to Mikveh for her Tum'ah and is a 'Tevulas Yom Aruch' (waiting for her eighty-first day). Because Beis-Shamai is of the opinion that a Tevul Yom requires Tevilah every day.

(b) Beis Shamai arrive at 95 Tevilos because they maintain that she returned the Bein Hashemashos before the time that we originally thought she did, and Toveled immediately.

(c) The reason that the Gemara said Bein Hashemashos, rather than at night, is in order to maintain the accuracy of the Beraisa, which speaks of three clean weeks, inferring twenty-one full days. Consequently, she must have arrived not after night, and then Toveled, but at Bein Hashemashos.