OPINIONS: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa that says that Rebbi conducted himself like Rebbi Eliezer. RASHI (DH Ma'aseh) explains that a question came before Rebbi regarding a young woman who did not see Dam Nidah for three consecutive spans of thirty days each. After these cycles, she saw Dam Nidah. Does she have a Halachah of Dayah Sha'atah, so that she is considered Tamei only from that time onwards, or must we suspect she was Tamei earlier like other women who see Dam Nidah? Rebbi ruled that her status is Dayah Sha'atah. He then remembered that this is not the correct ruling. The Mishnah later (7b) states that although Rebbi Eliezer rules this way, the Rabanan apply this ruling only to an old woman (Zekeinah) and not to a young woman.

Although Rebbi retracted his ruling in order to follow the view of the Rabanan, he stated that Rebbi Eliezer is worthy to be relied upon "b'She'as ha'Dechak" -- in pressing circumstances. To what type of pressing circumstances was Rebbi referring in this case?

(a) RASHI (6b, DH b'She'as ha'Dechak) explains that at the time that the question was posed to Rebbi, the land was suffering from a famine. Rebbi exclaimed that because it was a time of famine, Rebbi Eliezer's opinion may be relied upon in order for the Taharos that the woman handled within the last twenty-four hours to be considered Tahor.

(b) TOSFOS (DH b'She'as ha'Dechak) questions Rashi's explanation. The Gemara later (9b) relates that the Rabanan themselves agree that during a time of famine the law is Dayah Sha'atah in such a case. Why, then, did Rebbi say that we may rely specifically on Rebbi Eliezer during such a time? The Rabanan agree that during a famine the law is Dayah Sha'atah!

Tosfos therefore explains that the She'as ha'Dechak that Rebbi mentions refers to a different case. The person who posed the question to Rebbi would have been deemed Tamei from the Nidah had Rebbi ruled that the woman is considered Tamei twenty-four hours before she saw Dam Nidah. This would have made a small amount of Taharos that he had prepared at that time become Tamei. After Rebbi ruled for this person Dayah Sha'atah for such a woman, the man went and prepared a large amount of Taharos. Tosfos explains that this is not the same as a time of famine. In this case, the only reason why many Taharos might become Tamei is that an incorrect ruling was given, and not because of a pre-existing predicament such as a famine. Rebbi teaches that such a case is also considered a She'as ha'Dechak.

The MAHARAM questions this explanation. Why does Tosfos say that the man had first handled a small amount of Taharos? What difference does it make whether he had handled any Taharos? Perhaps the man was asking merely whether he was rendered Tamei by the Nidah, and after receiving the answer he went and prepared a lot of Taharos. Why does Tosfos set up the case in this manner?

The Maharam answers that Tosfos is explaining why Rebbi originally said that the woman is considered Dayah Sha'atah. At that point, Rebbi knew that there was an argument about the status of this woman, but he did not remember that the Rabanan (the majority) were the ones who argued with Rebbi Eliezer. Since the Halachah was not clear to him, Rebbi was lenient due to the small amount of Taharos that would have been rendered Tamei. However, had Rebbi realized his error, he would not have relied on Rebbi Eliezer unless the person had handled a lot of Taharos. Since, in the end, he did handle a lot of Taharos, this was considered a She'as ha'Dechak.

(c) Tosfos explains further that the person who had asked the question had already left, and it would take Rebbi a great deal of effort to catch up with the man in order to explain that he had not received the correct answer. Rebbi exempted himself from this effort by saying that Rebbi Eliezer may be relied upon in a She'as ha'Dechak. (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses two similar cases that happened with a maidservant in the house of Raban Gamliel. Raban Gamliel's maidservant would perform a Bedikah after each loaf of Terumah, or each barrel of wine, that she handled. All of her Bedikos came out clean, until the very last Bedikah. When Raban Gamliel heard that the maidservant did a Bedikah after she handled all of the Taharos and it was not clean, he ruled that all of the Taharos are Tamei. However, after the maidservant told him that all of her Bedikos between each loaf or barrel had been clean and only the last was Tamei, Raban Gamliel ruled that all of the loaves or barrels were Tahor, except for the last one, for she clearly was Tahor until her last clean Bedikah.

The MAHARAM FISHELS asks that this ruling seems to contradict a principle presented by the MAHARAM LUBLIN at the beginning of the Masechta. The Maharam states that when the Mishnah says that the Taharos that a woman handled since her last clean Bedikah are Tamei, and the ones before that Bedikah are Tahor, this applies only to a Bedikah that is mandated by the Chachamim. If she performs a clean Bedikah on her own volition, this does not ensure that all previous Taharos she handled remain Tahor.

The Gemara here contradicts the Maharam's words. The maidservant was not required by Halachah to perform all of the Bedikos that she performed; she did so of her own volition in order to ensure that the Taharos she was handling would remain Tahor. Raban Gamliel clearly ruled that her Bedikos were effective. How are we to understand the words of the Maharam?

(a) The CHOCHMAS BETZALEL says that we may answer this question based on the explanation of RAV LEIB FISHELS (the son of the Maharam Fishels). Rav Leib understands that the Maharam is saying that when a woman misses an obligatory Bedikah in either the morning or the night, and she proceeds to do her own Bedikah at her own time, this Bedikah does not ensure that all previous Taharos are Tahor. The logic behind this is that just as the woman is not careful about fulfilling the Bedikos required by the Chachamim, she is not careful to do a thorough Bedikah on her own volition.

Based on this explanation, there is no question on the Maharam's principle from this case of the Gemara. The maidservant certainly fulfilled the required Bedikos at morning and night, and thus there was no reason to suspect that she was not careful about doing thorough Bedikos. The Maharam would agree that any additional Bedikos done by such a woman are reliable and ensure the status of any Taharos that she previously handled.

The Chochmas Betzalel argues, however, that Rav Leib's explanation of the Maharam's words is not correct. Rather, he asserts that the correct explanation is that of the MISHNEH L'MELECH (Hilchos Mishkav u'Moshav 3:4) who explicitly writes that the Maharam maintains that any voluntary clean Bedikah -- even by a woman who does all of the required Bedikos -- does not preserve the Tahor status of Taharos handled before that Bedikah. According to the Mishneh l'Melech, how does the Maharam explain the Gemara?

(b) The Chochmas Betzalel says that it must be that Raban Gamliel rules like Rebbi Yehudah (11a), who maintains that as long as a woman is handling Taharos she is obligated to perform Bedikos. Since she has that obligation, these clean Bedikos ensure that the Taharos she handled previously are Tahor. (Y. MONTROSE)