1)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses a woman who has a sighting on the eleventh day of her Zivus period - which (as opposed to the ten days that precede it) - will not be followed by another day of Zivus.

(b)In spite of that, Beis Shamai rule that she is Tamei Mishkav u'Moshav - and so is her husband in the event that they are intimate.

(c)Beis Hillel agree with this ruling - mi'de'Rabbanan (who issued a decree on account of the other days).

(d)Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel - argue over a Korban, which the former obligate, whilst the latter do not.

(e)Beis Shamai's reason is - because they hold that the eleventh day itself requires Shimur (observation [in spite of the fact that there will be no second day of Zivus]).

2)

(a)If, after Toveling the next day and being intimate with her husband, the woman has a sighting during the day, Beis Shamai declares her Tamei Mishkav u'Moshav (despite the fact that this occurred during the Nidus period) - because in this case, they also decree the day after Shimur following a sighting on the eleventh day on account of a similar situation on one of the earlier days (when it is still during the Zivus period) ...

(b)... though she is obviously not Chayav a Korban.

(c)Beis Hillel - declare her Tahor, though they do brand her as being a Gargeran (greedy), since she ought to train herself to wait until the end of the day (in case, on more crucial days she will still see, as we will now explain).

3)

(a)Even Beis Hillel will agree however, that if she saw during the Zivus period, Toveled after nightfall and was intimate after the Tevilah, she is Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav, even if she did not see the following day. And she is Chayav a Korban too ...

(b)... because any woman who requires Shimur is a full-fledged Zavah Ketanah (min ha'Torah).

(c)The Tana finally refers to a woman who, after a sighting during the period of Zivus, and who is intimate the following day after she has Toveled as 'Tarbus Ra'ah' (which literally means 'bad upbringing'). And he concludes that the Taharos that she touches and the status of herself and her husband as a result of the intimacy - hang in abeyance, depending on whether she sees during the course of the day or not.

4)

(a)The Beraisa confines Beis Hillel's exemption from a Korban to the eleventh night (as we learned in our Mishnah). Beis Hillel will agree however, that if, after sighting on one of the earlier nights a Zavah ...

1. ... Tovels on the following night - her Tevilah is invalid.

2. ... Tovels on the following night and is intimate - she is nevertheless Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav. In fact, the Tana only adds this ruling to explain the previous one.

(b)When Beis Shamai in a Beraisa asked Beis Hillel ...

1. ... to explain the difference between a sighting during the first ten days (which leads to a Korban), and a sighting on the eleventh day (which does not, they replied - that - whereas a sighting during the first ten days is eligible to combine with a sighting on the following day, a sighting on the eleventh is not.

2. ... why, in the latter case, they differentiate between Tum'ah and Korban, they replied - because it is possible to be Machmir (and institute Tum'ah mi'de'Rabbanan) but not a Korban (which constitutes bringing Chulin ba'Azarah).

(c)Beis Hillel also retorted to the second question that - Beis Shamai might just as well ask the same question on themselves - seeing as, in the second case (where she Toveled the following day and was intimate before having another sighting, Beis Shamai themselves declare her Tamei, but Patur from a Korban.

5)

(a)Rav Huna stated that regarding Beis Shamai's second ruling in our Mishnah, if she Toveled on the twelfth day and was intimate, but did not have a further sighting, she is nevertheless Metamei Mishkav and Moshav - because the Rabbanan decree where she did not see because of where she did.

(b)We query Rav Huna's need to say this however, from Beis Shamai's second ruling - where, in the case where she saw on the twelfth day, they seem to say the same thing (because we assume 've'Ra'asah' to be La'av Davka [of no consequence], as we will see).

(c)Rav Yosef objected to Rav Kahana's reply 'Sha'ani Ra'asah'. In his opinion, 'Ra'asah' is 'La'av Davka' - because, in fact, it is a sighting of Nidus, which does not combine with the previous sighting regarding Zivus.

(d)To justify Rav Kahana's answer however Abaye replied that - as long as she saw on the twelfth day, it is possible to decree the sighting of a Nidah on account of that of a Zavah. but if she did not, there is nothing on which to institute a decree (since nobody will confuse a sighting for a non-sighting).

6)

(a)And we query Rav Huna further from a Mishnah in Zavim concerning a Zav who has one sighting and who Tovels the following day, to whom Beis Shamai ascribe the Din of a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom. The ramifications of ...

1. ... this ruling are that - any Ma'aser (see Rashash) that she touches hangs in abeyance until we see whether she sees again or not.

2. ... Beis Hillel's ruling, comparing him to a Ba'al-Keri are that - she is Tahor once she has Toveled.

(b)We cite another Beraisa, where Beis Hillel declares Tahor, a Tahor person who moves the first drop of Zivus, as well as the Mishkavos and the Moshavos between the first and second sightings - because Keri is not Metamei be'Masa.

(c)Beis Shamai rules ...

1. ... Tolin as regards both a Tahor who moves the first drop of Zivus and ...

2. ... the Mishkavos and the Moshavos between the first and second sightings.

(d)Abaye extrapolates from there that - since in the Mishnah in Zavim, Beis Shamai compare the first sighting of a Zav to a Shomeres Yom, and the Beraisa rules with regard to the former, 'Tolin', the Din regarding the latter (who did not yet see a second time) is also Tolin ....

(e)... a Kashya on Rav Huna).

7)

(a)To answer the Kashya on Rav Huna, we amend Beis Shamai's ruling comparing the first sighting of a Zav to a Shomeres Yom - to the Bo'el of a Shomeres Yom (who, even according to Rav Huna, is not Metamei Vaday).

(b)Even though Chazal decreed that a Shomeres Yom should be Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav, they did not also decree that ...

1. ... the Bo'el should be Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav (see Tosfos DH 'Mai Shena') - because whereas it is common for a woman to see, it is not common for a man.

2. ... she should be Metamei the Bo'el too - since it is common for a Zavah to lie or sit on a Mishkav or a Moshav, respectively, whereas for a Bo'el Zavah it is not.

8)

(a)The problem the Seifa of our Mishnah ('Tavlah be'Yom shel Acharav ve'Shimshah, harei Zu Tarbus Ra'ah u'Maga'an u'Be'ilasan Teluyin') creates for Rav Huna is that - assuming that it is unanimous, we have a proof that the Din after the first Re'iyah is Tolin (even according to Beis Shamai), but it is not Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav.

(b)We answer - by establishing the author as Beis Hillel ...

(c)... and we support this with a Beraisa, where we amend ...

1. ... Beis Shamai's query of Beis Hillel's description of the man's deed as 'Tarbus Ra'ah' 've'ha'Lo Lo Niskaven Zeh Ela Liv'ol es ha'Nidah' - to 'Liv'ol es ha'Zavah' (since they are talking about a sighting of Zivus and not of Nidus).

2. ... the initial amendment to 'Liv'ol es ha'Zavah' - to 'Liv'ol Shomeres Yom ... '.

(d)In any event, the Beraisa proves that - a Shomeres Yom, according to Beis Shamai, is Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav, and not just Tolin (like Rav Huna).

9)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish now argue over a woman who sees on the tenth day of the Zivus period. Rebbi Yochanan maintains that the tenth day is no different than the ninth, whereas according to Resh Lakish - it is the same as the eleventh, seeing as, like it, it cannot lead to Zivus.

(b)Others cite the Machlokes in connection with the following Beraisa. Bearing in mind that most Menachos require a Log of oil, Rebbi Akiva learns from the three times that the Torah mentions "ba'Shemen' by the Chalos and the wafers of the Torah that - they only require half a Log of oil, and not a whole one.

(c)Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah refutes the need for a Pasuk for this - since it is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(d)Besides the Isur of a Revi'is of wine for a Nazir, he includes in his list of 'Halachos le'Moshe mi'Sinai' - the eleven days between Nidah and Nidah.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan says 'Halachah Achad-Asar', and Resh Lakish 'Hilchos Achad-Asar' - which means that Rebbi Yochanan gives the eleventh day of Zivus one Halachah, namely that it does not require Shimur; whereas Resh Lakish adds that it cannot be a Shimur for the tenth either.

(b)We query this interpretation of the Machlokes however - on the grounds that it is not based on a Halachah ... , but on Pesukim, as we will now see from the ensuing Beraisa.

(c)If, as the Beraisa suggests, a woman could become a Zavah after three sightings at the beginning of the Nidus period, then the Pasuk in Metzora, which does not require seven clean days - would be speaking where she did not see three times.

(d)We know this is not correct however, and that she can only become a Zavah after the conclusion of the Nidus period - from the Pasuk there "be'Lo Es Nidasah".