Explanation: [He may not shave] before Zerikas Damim, for the Mitzvah is to shave after [Zerikah of] the blood [of his Korbanos]. If he shaved after one of the three, we say below (45a) that he was Yotzei.

Explanation: If a son was born on day 70, the part of the day before the birth counts towards the count of 100, so he did 70 days of the 100;

The part of the day after the birth counts towards the beginning of Nezirus [for his son]. He counts for Nezirus of his son only 29 more days. On day 99 of his Nezirus, 30 days for his son are completed.

Consequence: Now that day 70 counts for both, he may shave on day 100, which is day 31 for [Nezirus of] his son;

Because it is proper that that shaving counts for Nezirus of his son, for it is day 31 regarding his son, it counts also for his own Nezirus of 100 days.

Even though if a son was not born, he could not shave for his Nezirus until day 101, now that a son was born, he can shave on day 100, like I explained.

Question: What is the reason? Since if a son was not born, he could not shave until day 101 of his own Nezirus, also now he should not shave until day 101!

Answer: The Isur to shave on day 100 is only mid'Rabanan, like I explained above (6a);

Mid'Oraisa, he may shave on day 100, for Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo. Rabanan decreed that he not shave until day 101, due to when he said [100] full days;

Here, they left the law like Torah law, when a son was born, that he may shave on day 100, since for his son's Nezirus it is day 31, and he may shave for his son on day 100;

Therefore, also for his own Nezirus, the shaving of day 100 counts [l'Chatchilah].

Explanation: This is Ad v'Ad Bichlal (up to and including the limit itself).

Explanation: If you will say that it counts for both, he profits. The Mishnah should have taught that he profits through the birth of the son!

If the son was not born, he would not shave until day 101. Now, according to Rav, he shaves on day 100. He profited through the birth of the son. Why did [the Mishnah] say "he did not lose"?

Explanation: It would have been proper that the Mishnah not teach "he did not lose." Just the contrary, it should have taught "he profited"!

Because the Seifa taught "after 70, this is Soser", i.e. he loses through the birth of the son, also the Reisha taught "until 70, he did not lose at all", and it is even true that in the Reisha, he profited through the birth of the son!

Alternate text: Some texts do not say "Ela", just "it would have been proper that the Mishnah not teach 'until 70, he did not lose'." )Ela denotes retraction. We do not retract. We merely answer for Rav.)

Explanation: He loses. He holds that "after 70" means day 71. Why does he lose at all, according to Rav, through the birth of the son? The day of birth counts for both!

It counts also for the beginning of Nezirus for his son. It turns out that 30 days for the son end on day 100, and he can shave on day 101. He did not lose at all!

Explanation: He was born on day 72. Now, he cannot shave until day 102, and he lost through the birth.

Explanation: This refers to day 71. [If you will say that also then,], he is not Soser... Rather, we must say that "Acher" is literally (day 71)

Explanation: From our Mishnah we can prove unlike Rav, for the Mishnah holds that the day of birth does not count towards Nezirus for his son, like it counts for his Nezirus of 100 days;

It is drawn after and considered with the days that passed, i.e. his Nezirus.

Implied question: Why is this unlike what I explained in our Mishnah, that if a son was born on the first day of Nezirus, it counts for both of them?

Answer: Surely, since it is the first day of Nezirus for this, just like for this, why should it count for one more than the other?!

However, here he began his Nezirus many days ago. It is reasonable that the day of birth is drawn after and considered with the days that passed, i.e. his Nezirus;

Nezirus for his son will begin on the day after the birth.

Question: A Mishnah below (16a), and we (the Gemara) brought it above (6a), teaches that part of day 30 counts for the first Nezirus, and part counts for the second Nezirus. This shows that day 30 counts for both of them!

Answer: There is different, for the day is between two Neziros, and it is proper to consider the first part of [the day] towards the first Nezirus, and the end towards the second Nezirus;

Since he brought his Korbanos, he finished his [first] Nezirus. It is proper that the second Nezirus begin immediately, just like one who accepts Nezirus in the middle of the day. That day itself counts towards the count of Nezirus;

However, here, the day of birth, i.e. [day] 71, is in the middle of his Nezirus, and the beginning of his son's Nezirus;

It is proper to consider it totally for his Nezirus, following the days that passed, for also it is towards the count of 100 days;

Since day 71 is counted towards the 100, now we should not consider it like two [days], to be counted [also] for another Nezirus. Therefore, it does not count for [the Nezirus of] his son according to the Tana of our Mishnah.

Explanation: [We ask] because the Tana of our Mishnah holds unlike him.

Explanation: The law of Shiv'ah (the first seven days of mourning) is Batel, i.e. the Isur to wear shoes and have relations.

Pesak: The Halachah does not follow this. In Mo'ed Katan (20a) we conclude that even [if the relative died] a moment before the festival, the decree of Shiv'ah is Batel.

[If he died] eight days before the Regel, the decree of Sheloshim (the first 30 days of mourning) is Batel, i.e. regarding laundering, since he began one day of Sheloshim (i.e. after Shiv'ah) before the Regel;

He is permitted to cut his hair Erev Yom Tov, for honor of the festival;

If he did not cut his hair Erev Yom Tov, he may not cut it after the Regel, for it was permitted to override [the Isur of cutting hair] only for honor of the Regel. Since he did not show honor to the Regel, the Regel does not help for him to terminate [the laws of Sheloshim], and he completes [Sheloshim] after the Regel.

Explanation: He argues with the first Tana, who holds that the Regel is Mevatel in any case [even if he did not cut his hair Erev ha'Regel]

He argues [also] about another matter. Just like the Mitzvah of three (if one conducted three days of Shivah before the Regel) is Mevatel Gezeiras Shavah, so the Mitzvah of Shivah is Mevatel Gezeiras Sheloshim. He argues with the first Tana, who requires eight days.

Citation of Gemara: Isn't this because [Aba Sha'ul] holds that day seven counts towards for him?

Explanation: [It counts] towards the count of seven days, and part of it counts towards the count of 30, even though he is in the middle of Avelus.

Citation of Gemara: [He said so] only regarding Avelus mid'Rabanan.

Explanation: Mid'Oraisa, he is an Avel only on the first day, like it says "v'Acharisa k'Yom Mar";

However, regarding Nezirus mid'Oraisa, since we expound from a verse to require 30 days, we do not say that part of a day counts for both.

Explanation: [The day after she saw Dam Zivah] was Erev Pesach. [She immersed, and] they slaughtered Pesach for her, and afterwards she saw [blood]. She may not eat from the Pesach at night, for she is Tamei;

She is exempt from Pesach Sheni, because at the time of Shechitah she was Tehorah [the blood she saw later is not Metamei her retroactively. Therefore, she was Yotzei Korban Pesach.]

Explanation: From now and onwards she becomes Tamei. It turns out that at the time of Shechitah and Zerikah, she was totally Tehorah. [When she sees blood later] from now and onwards she becomes Tamei, but not retroactively.

When she sees [blood] later, we are Metamei her from now and onwards. Tomorrow she does total Shimur for the part of this day on which she became Tamei.

Note: This is the law of Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom, i.e. a woman who saw blood during the days of Zivah. If she sees one or two consecutive days, she must be Shomer (guard) the following day in Taharah. If she sees two [or three] consecutive days, she is a Zavah Ketanah [or Gedolah].

Inference: This second day, we consider it a Tahor day for the previous day, therefore Shechitah and Zerikah were in Taharah;

Part of [this second day], we consider it a day of Tum'ah, so the next day is Shimur for this partial day.

Rabanan disagree. They are Metamei retroactively, and considered the entire day Tamei, like yesterday. Rav said like R. Yosi.

Observation: Also here, there is a reason to consider the day to be totally Tamei, like the previous day, like Rabanan hold. Even so, R. Yosi considers it for both (partially Tahor like yesterday, and partially Tamei like tomorrow). This is like Rav.

Correction: Texts of the Gemara say "perhaps it is because he holds [Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo]." The [correct] text does not say so. If not [that he holds that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo], what does it help that he is not Metamei retroactively?! (In any case she is Tamei due to the end of the day!)

Distinction: We could not say that he saw three sightings, for then he cannot eat Kodshim at night, until the eighth day when he brings his Korbanos. (One is Yotzei Pesach only if at the time of Shechitah, it was possible for him to eat at night.)

Implied question: [Why couldn't he discuss a Zav who saw three sightings,] on his eighth day (he counted seven days without emissions, and immersed)? If he saw afterwards, he is Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav retroactively!

Answer: From after day seven, he ceased Stirah (future emissions do not cancel his seven clean days. They are like new sightings of Zivah.) His Mishkav u'Moshav from yesterday, after Tevilah, until now, are Tehorim. Even if he saw today on day eight, he is not [Tamei retroactively].

Explanation: Even if he immersed on day seven, his Mishkavos after Tevilah are Teme'im, for he cancelled his count;

He is like at the beginning [of counting clean days], for it says "v'Safrah Lah Shivas Yamim", and there are not here seven [consecutive clean days. The verse discusses a Zavah; the same applies to a Zav.]

Since he taught about a Shomeres Yom retroactive Tum'ah, this shows that he does not say that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo! (If Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo, after guarding part of the day in Taharah, future sightings would not join to yesterday's sighting,)

R. Yosi contradicts himself! We answer that the retroactive Tum'ah is mid'Rabanan. Mid'Oraisa, [retroactively] she is Tehorah.

Explanation: We reject [the support]. I can say that they permitted Tum'as ha'Tehom (a Tum'ah that no one knew about) of Zivah (i.e. that the person will become Tamei retroactively due to a future sighting);

i.e. I can say that they are Metamei retroactively mid'Oraisa, and [even so] they are exempt from Pesach Sheni;

This is because a tradition from Moshe from Sinai permits Tum'as ha'Tehom of Mes for one who offers Pesach. This Tana holds that even Tum'as ha'Tehom of Zivah is permitted for one who offers Pesach.

Explanation: At the time of Shechitah he sat on a rock, and did not know at all that a grave is underneath. Only after Shechitah it became known that he became Tamei through Kever ha'Tehom

Similarly here, no one knew at the time of Shechitah whether she will see afterwards and cancel [her Shimur] to be Tamei retroactively. They permitted Tum'as ha'Tehom Zivah for one who offers Pesach, and a Nazir.

Explanation: This refers to the answer that retroactively [she is Tamei] mid'Rabanan.

Question: Rashi in Pesachim (81a) did not know to what this refers.

Explanation: ["Lefanav" is] what he already counted. He must count another seven [clean] days.

Citation of Gemara: R. Yochanan told [R. Oshaya] that he should cancel only that day.

Explanation: He should return to count one more day;

[The Gemara] asks about R. Yochanan's words. If he cancels, he should cancel all [of the days], for it says "v'Safrah Lah Shivas Yamim l'Taharasah" - Tum'ah may not separate between them (the seven clean days). The verse discusses a Zavah; the same applies to a Zav.]

Citation: In Pesachim (81a) the text says "if he holds that he is Metamei retroactively, he should cancel all of them";

Citation (cont.): If he is Metamei from now and onwards, he should not cancel even this day, for it is like a first sighting of another Zivah, and there is only Tum'as Erev;

He immerses [before] evening and he is [totally] Tahor [at night], for we hold that the first sighting of Zov is like mere Keri (semen).

Explanation: [He should not cancel] even that day, since part of the day already passed, and he finished his count, and departed from Zivah.

Explanation: R. Oshaya said to R. Yochanan "R. Yosi holds like you."

Conclusion: Now we conclude that R. Oshaya holds that R. Yosi holds that he is Metamei retroactively, i.e. mid'Rabanan.