1)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that a Nefel that emerged cut up or feet first requires a Rov to be considered a Y'lud. Rebbi Elazar comments that 'cut up' refers even to where the head is included. According to Rebbi Yochanan however - once the head has emerged, a Rov is no longer required.

(b)We suggest that they are arguing over a ruling by Shmuel, who said 'Ein ha'Rosh Poter bi'Nefalim' - if a seventh-month Nefel sticks out his head before his healthy twin (who is subsequently born first), he is not considered born (and does not therefore deter the healthy twin from being the B'chor.

(c)We now presume that - Rebbi Elazar holds like Shmuel, whereas Rebbi Yochanan does not.

(d)We refute this suggestion however, by confining their Machlokes to where the baby is cut-up. But there where the baby is complete - even Rebbi Elazar will agree that the head is considered like a Y'lud ...

(e)... not like Shmuel.

2)

(a)Others cite the Machlokes - independent of our Mishnah, specifically adding that they are arguing over Shmuel's Din (as we explained) ...

(b)... in which case, Rebbi Elazar will once again concur with Shmuel (like we learned initially).

3)

(a)We query Rebbi Yochanan from our Mishnah 'Yatza Mechutach O Mesuras, mi'she'Yatza Rubo, harei Zeh ki'Yelud' - implying that 'Mechutach' emerged head first, yet the Tana requires Rov.

(b)To reconcile the Mishnah with Rebbi Yochanan ...

1. ... we initially amend the Mishnah to read - 'Mechutach u'Mesuras' (instead of 'O Mesuras').

2. ... after it is pointed out that the Tana does after all, insert the word 'O' we amend it to read - 'Yatza Mechutach O Shaleim, ve'Zeh va'Zeh Mesuras, mi'she'Yatza Rubo ... '.

(c)Rav Papa ...

1. ... cites a Machlokes Tana'im. He amends the statement of the Tana Kama, who echoes the words of our Mishnah 'Yatza Mechutach O Mesuras ... ' - to read 'Yatza Mechutach u'Mesuras ... ', from which he extrapolates 'ha ke'Tikno, ha'Rosh Poter'.

2. ... interprets Rebbi Yossi, who says 'mi'she'Yatza ke'Tikno' to mean - Rubo ke'Tikno (but not Mesuras). By learning the Beraisa in this way - he has established Rebbi Yochanan like the Tana Kama, and Rebbi Elazar like Rebbi Yossi.

(d)Rav Z'vid's problem with that is - bearing in mind the principle Rubo ke'Kulo, why Rov should not be considered a Y'lud even if it emerges Mesuras?

4)

(a)Rav Z'vid therefore amends Rebbi Yossi to read 'mi'she'Yaz'a ke'Tikno, le'Chayim', by which he means that - it is only if the Nefel emerges intact that the head renders it a Y'lud even without a Rov (like Rebbi Elazar).

(b)The basic difference between his interpretation of the Beraisa and that of Rav Papa is that - whereas according to Rav Papa, Rebbi Yossi refers to the actual statement of the Tana Kama, according to Rav Z'vid, he is referring to the inference.

(c)In the Beraisa that we cite in support of Rav Z'vid, the Tana defines ke'Tikno, le'Chayim as - Rov Rosho.

(d)According to Rebbi Yossi, this refers to the Nefel's temples; according to Rebbi Yehoshua - to his forehead.

(e)Yesh Omrim interpret it as Karnei Rosho, meaning - the top of his head next to the Oref (above the neck).

5)

(a)We already discussed our Mishnah which requires a woman who does not know whether she miscarried a Zachar or Nekeivah, to sit for both (le'Chumra). If she does not even know for sure that it was a V'lad, then she must sit for a Nidah as well ...

(b)... meaning that - she must observe the Din Nidah during what otherwise be the days of Taharah .

6)

(a)Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (whom we already discussed in the second Perek) rules that a woman who miscarries whilst crossing a river - must bring a Korban, which is eaten by the Kohanim - because we go after the majority of women, who give birth to (or who miscarry) proper V'lados.

(b)The problem with this from our Mishnah is - the Mishnah's final ruling (where the woman does not know for sure that she miscarried a V'lad) 'Teishev le'Zachar ... u'le'Nidah', indicating that it is a Safek whether her baby was a proper V'lad or not.

(c)And we reconcile Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi with our Mishnah - by establishing the latter in a case where her pregnancy was not yet established.

7)

(a)We query Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi from a Beraisa, where the Tana rules that if a Beheimah went out full and returned empty - the baby that follows is a B'chor mi'Safek ...

(b)... whereas according to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, it ought to be a Vaday Pashut (a non-B'chor [since the previous birth was definitely a V'lad]).

(c)Initially, Ravina resolves the problem - by pointing out that, since (unlike most animals), the mother was not Metanefes (did not emit a thick mass) the day before, its Rov is weakened.

(d)We object to Ravina's Lashon 'Kol ha'Yoldos Metanfos' however - amending it to 'Rov Yoldos Metanfos' because, if all mothers would be Metanef, then the next baby would be a Vaday B'chor (and not just a Safek).

8)

(a)When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he cited Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who queried Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi from the Beraisa concerning To'eh - a woman who does not know the date on which she gave birth.

(b)Ravin himself commented that - he did not know what the Kashya from there was (as we will now explain).

9)

(a)In the Beraisa of To'eh, the Tana, discussing a woman who left full and returned empty without knowing when she gave birth, describes the subsequent days. He refers to three Tahor weeks - and then ten weeks during which she is alternately Tamei (one week) and Tahor (the next).

(b)And he permits Tashmish - on the thirty-fifth night.

(c)Beis Shamai requires ninety-five consecutive Tevilos all in all, and Beis Hillel - thirty-five.

(d)According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, the woman requires only one Tevilah at the end - because, unlike Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, he holds 'Tevilah bi'Zemanah La'av Mitzvah (there is no Mitzvah to Tovel as soon as the Tevilah falls due).

10)

(a)The Tana forbids Tashmish during ...

1. ... the first week after her return (including the remainder of the day of her return) - in case she gave birth to a boy on the day of her return.

2. ... the second week - in case the baby she gave birth to was a girl.

3. ... the third week - in case she gave birth be'Zov (having seen blood on three consecutive days prior to the birth, without pain).

(b)Even assuming the last scenario, even though she already sat two clean weeks, she needs to sit a third one - because we do not count the days of Tum'ah (following a birth) without a sighting, as clean days.

(c)The problem Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina has with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi from the fourth week (after her return [where she saw the whole week]) is that - seeing as it is still within the thirty-three days of Tohar after the birth of a Zachar, assuming that we go after the Rov (women who give birth to a proper V'lad, as Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi maintains) - why is Tashmish not permitted?

(d)Ravin refutes Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's proof however - on the grounds that she may have given birth a long time before her return, in which case the fourth week took place after the termination of the days of Taharah (see Tosfos DH 'Eimar').

11)

(a)According to Ravin, the reason that Tashmish is forbidden ...

1. ... during the following week (where she does not see) is - because each day of the fourth week is a Safek whether it is the last of the days of Tum'as Leidah or the first day of Nidus. Now if the last day of the week was the beginning of Nidus, she is obligated to count another six days of Nidus, which end on the night of the thirty-fifth day.

2. ... on the following night (the night of the thirty-sixth) is - because she has now entered a week on which she sees (and the same applies to the entire sixth week).

3. ... on all subsequent nights, even during the weeks that she does not (such as the seventh) - in case the fourth week began the days of Nidah, in which case the sixth week will have occurred during the days of Zivus, and the seventh week will then constitute the seven clean days that follow.

(b)We ask why Tashmish is not permitted on the twenty-first day - because even if she gave birth on the day of her arrival, the two weeks of Tum'ah for a girl, as well as the clean days of Zivus, have passed (and a Zav is permitted to Tovel on the seventh day, due to the principle Miktzas ha'Yom ke'Kulo (part of the day is akin to the full day).

(c)We answer by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon, who forbids her to do so - for fear that she sees after the Tevilah, negating the seven clean days (thereby causing the husband to have transgressed the Isur of Bo'el Zavah retroactively).

(d)Tashmish is not even permitted on the night of the twenty-second day (before she has a sighting) because the Beraisa is speaking when each Tamei week begins with a sighting the night before.

12)

(a)Beis Shamai requires ninety-five Tevilos, beginning with one Tevilah for each of the first seven nights, in case she was a Yoledes Zachar (during any of the seven days prior to her return [see Tosfos DH 'be'Shavu'a']), and two Tevilos daily on each day of ...

1. ... the second week - one by night and one by day (in case she was a Yoledes Zachar be'Zov).

2. ... the third week - one by night and one by day (in case she was a Yoledes Nekeivah be'Zov)

(b)She requires the Tevilos at night, even though the two weeks of a Nekeivah are already over - because Beis Shamai requires a Tevulas-Yom Aruch (which she is during the sixty-six days of Taharah, after having Toveled following the days of Tum'ah) to Tovel again before she becomes permitted to eat Terumah on the eighty-first day (as we will see in the last Perek).