1)

(a)When Rebbi Zeira asked Rav Yehudah whether a woman is permitted to examine herself for her husband only, the latter replied in the negative - because he said, examining herself would deter her husband from having relations with her (for fear of becoming Chayav Chatas).

(b)When Rebbi Aba asked Rav Huna whether a woman is permitted to examine herself within 'Shi'ur Veses' in order to obligate her husband a Chatas (should she discover that she is Tamei) - he replied that this is not physically possible, since for him to bring a Chatas, the discovery must be made immediately ...

(c)... based on a Beraisa, which gives the 'Shi'ur Veses' as 'the Shamash and the Eid that are standing beside the lintel ... '. This means that when the Eiver Tashmish (the Shamash) exits through the door (i.e. passes the lintel [the womb]), the cloth (the Eid) is ready to find any blood that there is.

(d)In addition, 'Shi'ur Veses' refers (not to Bedikah) - but to wiping herself clean (since a Bedikah implies no longer than the entry mentioned in the Mashal [see Rashash]).

2)

(a)If, in the same case, she discovered blood after a Bedikah - then her husband would be obligated to bring an Asham Taluy (rather than a Chatas).

(b)According to the second Lashon, Rebbi Zeira asked Rav Yehudah - whether she is permitted to make a Bedikah after Tashmish (which at most, will obligate her husband to bring an Asham Taluy).

(c)He replied - like he did in the first Lashon, and for the same reason (despite the fact that an Asham Taluy is not as stringent as a Chatas).

3)

(a)When Rebbi Yanai describes the Din in our Mishnah, incorporating a woman who comes to make Tashmish in the Din of Bedikah, as 've'Zehu Eiden shel Tzenu'os', he means - that it is Midas Chasidus to prepare an Eid to use before Tashmish, but not an obligation.

(b)The problem ...

1. ... Rebbi Aba bar Mamal, who quoted him in the first place, has with that is - that 'Tzerichos' (the word used by the Mishnah) implies that it is an obligation.

2. ... Rava has with Rebbi Ami's answer (that what he meant was whoever fulfills the words of the Chachamim is called a 'Tzanu'a') is - from the inference that someone who doesn't, is not called a Tzanu'a, whereas in reality, anyone who contravenes the words of the Chachamim is called a 'Rasha'.

(c)Rava therefore explains the statement to mean - that Tzenu'os tend not to use the same Eid before one Tashmish that they already used before a previous one.

(d)Tzenu'os would not do so - because of the fear that a tiny drop of blood on the cloth may be hidden by the Zera.

4)

(a)Rebbi Zeira extrapolates from Shmuel's earlier ruling, obligating a woman who (is dealing with Taharos and who) has no Veses, to examine herself for her husband - that if she had a Veses, she would be exempt from doing so.

(b)Rebbi Aba bar Yirmiyah resolves Rebbi Zeira's Kashya, why even a woman with a Veses ought to be Chayav too - by establishing ...

1. ... the Mishnah (which obligates her) - to where she is awake (see Tosfos DH 'Bein Yesheinos' later on the Amud); whereas ...

2. ... Shmuel (who exempts her) - speaks where she is asleep ...

(c)... where she is Patur (aside from the reason that, in that state [see Tosfos DH 'Bein Yesheinah'] she is not fit to deal with Taharos) - because of the Tircha (bother) involved to get her out of bed to make the Bedikah (before Tashmish). And it is possible that she does require Bedikah even if she is otherwise used to dealing with Taharos.

(d)We answer Rava's Kashya as to why Rebbi Aba bar Yirmiyah did not answer by drawing a distinction between a woman who has a Veses (who requires a Bedikah for her husband only if she is also dealing with Taharos) and who does not (who requires one even if she is not) - in that clearly, Shmuel does not differentiate between the two.

5)

(a)The Beraisa rules that ass-drivers and laborers who return from the house of an Aveil or from a wedding are ...

1. ... permitted to cohabit with their wives - whether the latter are awake or asleep (see Tosfos DH 'Bein Yesheinos'), provided they left them be'Chezkas Tahor.

2. ... prohibited from doing so - if they left them be'Chezkas Tamei.

(b)The problem this creates for Shmuel (see Tosfos DH 'Shmuel be'Mai Muki Lah'), assuming the Tana is referring to a woman who ...

1. ... has a Veses is - why she is permitted to him without a Bedikah even when she is awake.

2. ... does not have a Veses is - why she is permitted even if she is asleep.

(c)We answer by establishing the Beraisa by a woman with a Veses, and she is permitted even without an actual Bedikah - on the basis of the fact that he first asked her permission to have relations with her (see Tosfos), and she acquiesced without examining herself (a sign that she knows that she is Tahor [and that is actually what Shmuel meant when he said that she requires a Bedikah in this case).

6)

(a)Rav Papa asked Rava whether we need to follow this Beraisa, by which he meant to ask - whether in the case of a woman who does not have a Veses, one needs to arouse a sleeping woman either to examine herself or to ask her permission before having relations with her (see also Tosfos DH 'Mahu').

(b)Rava replied in the negative - because if he has to wait for her to make a Bedikah, or whilst waiting for her reply (see Tosfos DH 'Amar Leih'), he will come to despise her.

(c)He referred to Rav Papa as Sudni because it means either a Talmid-Chacham, or a beer-maker (both of which Rav Papa was).

7)

(a)Rav Kahana asked the wives of Rav Papa and Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua whether, when their husbands returned from the Beis-Hamedrash, they required them to make a Bedikah (see Tosfos DH 'Mi Matzrichi'). He did not ask Rav Papa and Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua themselves - in case they would rule leniently, even though they were stringent with their own wives (and he figured that it was befitting for a man of his caliber to fall in line with their stringency).

(b)The alternative version of this latter answer is - that perhaps they ruled stringently, but did not enforce that ruling on their wives, and Rav Kahana would then accept the latter ruling.

(c)This explanation is unacceptable however - because Rav Kahana should rather have referred to this as being strict with others and lenient with themselves, which is unethical and is simply not done.

8)

(a)Rebbi Meir rules that if a woman has no Veses, then ...

1. ... Tashmish - is permanently forbidden. In addition ...

2. ... she loses her Kesuvah, the Peiros of her Nechsei Milug and her sustenance.

(b)She also loses her 'Bela'os' - the clothes that she brings into the marriage (and which are assessed for the husband to use [and are known as 'Nechsei Tzon Barzel']).

(c)Rebbi Meir adds to this - that her husband is obligated to divorce her, and may never take her back.

9)

(a)Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos - permits her to her husband by means of two Eidim (cloths) before Tashmish.

(b)When he says 'Hein Ivsuhah, Hein Tiknuhah', he means - that should she see blood, the Eidim will forbid her on her husband, whereas should she not see blood, they will permit her to him.

(c)They cite Aba Chanan, who laments the lot of the husband and says - 'Woe to her husband!'

(d)Regarding Rebbi Meir's opinion, the reason we give for the woman ...

1. ... being forbidden to her husband is - because we are afraid that she may see blood during Tashmish.

2. ... losing her Kesuvah is - because she is unable to perform Bi'ah.

3. ... losing the T'nai Kesuvah (Peiros, Mezonos and Bela'os) is - because T'nai Kesuvah has the same Din as the Kesuvah itself.

10)

(a)We establish the ruling of Rebbi Meir forbidding the man to ever take her back - even if she should later develop a Veses (otherwise it would be obvious).

(b)The reason for this Chumra is - in case the woman remarries, and the husband subsequently claims that had he known that she would adopt a Veses, he would never have divorced her. If that were to happen, her Get would be annulled, and her children from her second husband would be Mamzerim.

(c)There are two interpretations of Aba Chanan's statement 'Woe to the husband!'. Assuming he was speaking to ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir, he meant - that in his opinion, not only does the man lose his wife, but (as opposed to Rebbi Meir) he has to pay her Kesubah as well.

2. ... Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos, he meant - that examining herself with the two Eidim will not suffice, in case she sees during Tashmish (like Rebbi Meir). Consequently, he has no choice other than to divorce her.

11)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules - like Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos.

(b)We query this however, from a statement of Rebbi Zeira Amar Rebbi Aba bar Yirmiyah Amar Shmuel (that we cited earlier), who rules that a woman who does not have a Veses - is only permitted via Bedikah.

(c)The problem with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's ruling, assuming that Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos is referring to a woman who is ...

1. ... dealing with Taharos is - why Shmuel then finds it necessary to rule like him (seeing as he has already like him in that statement).

2. ... not dealing with Taharos - then as we explained there, a woman does not even require Bedikah for her husband only.

(d)We conclude that Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos is referring to - a woman who is dealing with Taharos ...

(e)... and although we do not need both statements, one was made by Rav Yehudah, and the other, by Rebbi Aba bar Yirmiyah (which happen to coincide).

12)

(a)To reconcile Rav Yehudah here with his own statement, where, regarding our Mishnah 'be'Sha'ah she'hi Overes le'Shuk', cites Shmuel as saying 'Lo Shanu Ela ba'Asukah ... ' - he is only coming to teach us there that if she is not dealing with Taharos, she does not require Bedikah, whereas here, he rules like Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos, who requires Bedikah when she is (which is his main ruling).

(b)There are some who establish Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos by a woman who is not dealing with Taharos. They will reconcile the statement of Rav Yehudah (who rules like him) with that of Rebbi Aba bar Yirmiyah (who maintains that she does not require Bedikah under those circumstances) - by turning it into a Machlokes Amora'im as to how Shmuel holds.

(c)We refute this version however - because in that case, Rav Yehudah's statement here will clash with his earlier one (that we just quoted).