1)

(a)We already discussed the case of a woman who gives birth to a piece of flesh, whom the Tana Kama of our Mishnah declares Tamei, but only if there is blood. Otherwise she is Tahor - since a. a piece of flesh is not considered a birth, and b. she did not see blood.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah - declares her Tamei whether she sees blood or not.

(c)The Tana - requires a woman who gives birth to something that resembles a scab, a hair, a speck of dust or a red gnat to place it in water, in order to identify it.

(d)She will then know that it is Tamei - in the event that it melts (since that is a sign that it is blood). Otherwise, it is a piece of flesh, and she remains Tahor.

2)

(a)If a woman gives birth to ...

1. ... a kind of fish, grasshopper or insect - she remains Tahor, unless they are accompanied by blood (as we learned in the previous case).

2. ... a kind of animal, wild beast or bird, according to Rebbi Meir - she is Tamei, and must observe the days of Tum'ah and Taharah, as if she gave birth to a boy or girl, depending on whether it is a male or a female; in case of doubt, she must observe both, le'Chumra (as we shall see).

(b)And this ruling will apply - irrespective of whether the animal belongs to a Kasher species or not.

(c)'ve'Im Ein Yadu'a Teishev la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah' means - that she must observe fourteen days of Tum'ah (as if she had given birth to a girl), and twenty-six days (that remain until the forty days after the birth of a boy have elapsed) of Taharah (as if she had given birth to a boy).

(d)According to the Chachamim - as long as the baby does not have the shape of a human-being, the mother is not Tamei Leidah.

3)

(a)According to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, Rebbi Yehudah considers the woman Tamei even if there is no blood, only if the piece of flesh is the color of one of the four appearances of blood (as we already learned). Rebbi Yochanan holds that in a case ...

1. ... where it is - even the Chachamim will concede that she is Tamei.

2. ... where it is not - even Rebbi Yehudah will concede that she is not.

(b)According to him, they argue over a case where she does not know what color the V'lad was - whether most pieces of flesh are the color of one of the four Tamei appearances (Rebbi Yehudah, who therefore go after the majority and considers her Tamei), or not (the Chachamim).

(c)We query both opinions from a Beraisa which Rav Hoshaya brought with him from Neherda'a, and where the Tana Kama rules that in a case where a woman miscarries a piece of red, black, yellow or white flesh, she is Tamei only if it is accompanied by a sighting of blood, whereas Rebbi Yehudah - considers her Tamei anyway.

4)

(a)This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Shmuel - according to whom, Rebbi Yehudah would have rendered her Tahor in the case of the piece of yellow or white flesh.

(b)We cannot answer that Rebbi Yehudah only disagrees with the Rabbanan with regard to red and black flesh, but not yellow and white - because then, unless it is to teach us that Rebbi Yehudah argues), why would the Tana have needed to mention the latter at all, seeing as, according to the Rabbanan, it is obvious.

(c)The Beraisa poses an additional Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan - as to why the Tana mentions red and black flesh, which the Rabbanan, according to him, will concede render the woman Tamei.

(d)We cannot answer that the Rabbanan only disagree with Rebbi Yehudah with regard to yellow and white flesh, but not red and black - because then, unless it is to inform us that the Rabbanan disagree, why did the Tana mention it in the first place, since according to Rebbi Yehudah, it is obvious.

5)

(a)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan - by whether it is feasible for the womb to open without there being any blood (the Rabbanan) or not (Rebbi Yehudah).

(b)This Machlokes in turn, is based on another Machlokes in a Beraisa, which discusses a woman who had pains for two consecutive days, before having an unidentified miscarriage. This occurred - during the eleven days between one period of Nidus and the next.

(c)The Tana Kama considers her a Safek Yoledes, Safek Zavah or neither. She might ...

1. ... not be a Zavah - because if she gave birth to a baby, pains immediately prior to a birth are attributed to the childbirth, and not to Zivus.

2. ... be neither a Yoledes nor a Zavah - if a. she gave birth to a piece of flesh and b. there was no blood.

(d)Consequently - she brings her Chatas ha'Of (to enable her to eat Kodshim and enter the Mikdash) ...

(e)... the Kohanim may not eat it however (in case she was neither, and the bird is Chulin and therefore Neveilah, since Melikah renders Chulin, Neveilah).

6)

(a)In the second Lashon, Rav Yehudah cites Shmuel like he did in the first Lashon, and we query him from the same Beraisa. Rebbi Yochanan's opinion - is not mentioned in this Lashon.

(b)The name of the Amora who establishes the Machlokes by whether 'Efshar li'Pesichas Kever be'Lo Dam' or not however is - Rebbi Yochanan.

7)

(a)Sumchus in the name of Rebbi Meir, in a Beraisa (as well as Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya), requires a sighting of blood, besides the piece of flesh. He says - that one tears the piece of flesh open, and if there is blood inside it, the woman is Tamei, causing us to comment that he concurs with the Rabbanan, but goes further than them.

(b)He ...

1. ... concurs with the Rabbanan - inasmuch as he too holds 'Efshar li'Pesichas ha'Kever be'Lo Dam'.

2. ... goes even further than them - in that they require blood with the piece of flesh, but not inside it, whereas he is satisfied if the blood is inside it.

(c)By the same token, we comment that Rebbi Acha holds like Sumchus, but goes even further than him. This comment follows his statement - that one tears open the piece of flesh, and if the inside is colored red (even though there is no actual blood), she is Tamei.

8)

(a)In yet a third Beraisa, Rebbi Binyamin says that if a woman gives birth to a piece of flesh which contains a bone - she is Tamei Leidah.

(b)Rav Chisda qualifies this ruling - by requiring the flesh to be colored white (like human flesh), failing which, the bone is no indication that it is a V'lad.

(c)A pair of Chachamim arrived from Chadayav with a Beraisa - like Rebbi Binyamin, and which adds that the flesh has to be white (in support of Rav Chisda).

9)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan citing Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai, also declares the woman Tamei if there is blood inside the piece of flesh. His opinion is 'more lenient' than that of Sumchus however - inasmuch as whereas the latter requires no more than a drop of blood for the woman to be Tamei, he requires a lot of blood to be gathered inside.

(b)When we add that his opinion is more lenient than all the others, we are referring - only to those opinions from Sumchus and onwards, incorporating only Rebbi Acha, who is even more stringent than Sumchus, as we just explained.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked Rebbi Zeira whether a woman who sights blood in a tube that she inserted in her womb is Tamei or not. She might not be - because the Torah writes in Metzora (in connection with a Nidah) "Dam Yih'yeh Zovah bi'Vesorah", implying that the blood must flow directly through the walls of the womb, and not through something else.

(b)Alternatively, we might learn from this Pasuk - that Dam Nidah is Metamei the woman even whilst it is still inside the womb ...

(c)... unlike Zivus and Keri which are only Metamei once they have left the body.

(d)Rebbi Zeira answered him - that we also Darshen "bi'Vesorah", 've'Lo bi'Shefoferes', because otherwise, it would have sufficed to write "Besarah" (without the 'Beis').

(e)We refute the Kashya from Rebbi Yochanan citing Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai that we just cited, where he declared a gathering of blood inside a piece of flesh, Tamei (even though it is between something else other than the walls of the womb) - since it is natural for a woman to see blood there, and is not therefore precluded from Nidus by the D'rashah "bi'Vesarah" (Rashi explains the Sugya differently, see Seifer 'Eizehu Mekoman').

11)

(a)The Tana Kama in a Beraisa rules that a woman who miscarries a piece of flesh that is full of blood is Tamei, provided she sees blood together with it. Based on the Pasuk "bi'Vesarah", Rebbi Eliezar rules - "bi'Vesarah", 've'Lo bi'Shefir, ve'Lo ba'Chatichah'.

(b)The problem with Rebbi Eliezer is - that he seems to concur with the Tana Kama.

(c)We solve the problem by establishing the entire Beraisa like Rebbi Eleizer, and by amending the final phrase to read 'she'Rebbi Eliezer Omer ... '.

(d)The problem with the Seifa 'va'Chachamim Omrim Ein Zeh Dam Nidah Ela Dam Chatichah' is - that now it is the Chachamim who seem to concur with Rebbi Eliezer.

12)

(a)So we establish the Machlokes by Pal'i Pelu'i, but they agree by Shi'i. By ...

1. ... 'Pal'i Palu'i', we mean - that the piece of flesh contains cracks, where the blood inside is touching the womb (via the cracks [and is therefore not precluded by "bi'Vesarah"]).

2. ... 'Shi'i' we mean that the piece of meat is smooth without cracks, in which case the blood does not touch the sides of the womb (and is therefore subject to the D'rashah of "bi'Vesarah') ...

(b)... and the same will apply to blood that is found inside a tube (as Rebbi Zeira just concluded).

(c)According to the Chachamim too ...

1. ... 'Pal'i Palu'i' - is Tahor, but because the blood contained in a Chatichah is not considered Dam Nidah.

2. ... Sh'foferes is Tamei - because it is Dam Nidah.

(d)We conclude however, that even the Chachamim will agree that Sh'foferes is Tahor, and they are arguing over whether it is natural for a woman to see blood in a piece of flesh (Rebbi Eliezer) or not (the Chachamim). Consequently, if blood is seen in a piece of flesh containing cracks ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer holds that she is Tamei, whereas ...

2. ... the Chachamim declare her Tahor.

13)

(a)According to Rava, even Rebbi Eliezer will agree that it is not natural for a woman to see blood in a piece of flesh. And when he says that if there is no blood with the piece of flesh, the woman is not Tamei, he means - that she is not Tamei (since it is not considered a sighting), but the blood is (though it is merely an Av that makes a Rishon [since it came from the M'kor, and all blood from the M'kor is Tamei], but not Dam Nidus, as we already learned in the previous Perek).

(b)And when the Chachamim then say 'Ein Zeh Dam Nidah ... ', they mean - that since the woman is Tahor, her blood is Tahor, too.