Explanation: [He asks whether she should check] before Bi'ah.

Explanation (R. Chananel): Since he sees her check, he thinks that had she not had a Hargashah, she would not check, for she knows that Chachamim did not enact to check.

Implied question: He could have asked "should she check before Bi'ah and leave the cloth until the morning, in order to obligate her husband a Chatas?"!

Answer: He already answered him that if she checks before Bi'ah, he will be worried and refrain.

Note: The Rashash says that in Tosfos' text, also this question R. Zeira asked to Rav Yehudah. In our text, R. Aba asked this of Rav Huna.

Explanation: This is said in astonishment.

Question: In Kesuvos (3b), it says "[they enacted that Ones does not Mevatel a Get] due to Tzenu'os (pious women) and lewd women." Since they call the first Tzenu'os, why are those who do not do so called lewd? (Rava teaches that one who is not Tzenu'a is not necessarily a Rasha!)

Answer: There, they call them Tzenu'os, like it says there that sometimes there is no Ones, and she thinks that there is Ones (and she would not remarry. Therefore, they enacted that even if there was Ones, the Get is valid), even though according to letter of the law, she should attribute that there is no Ones, for Ones does not occur to most people;

[They enacted also] due to lewd women, for sometimes there is Ones, i.e. she knows that there is Ones, and she says that there was no Ones. The text does not say "she thinks."

Explanation: He discusses a woman who engages with Taharos.

Question: What is the Chidush? Our Mishnah (11a) teaches this - "and when she is about to have Bi'ah"!

Suggestion: [Shmuel] teaches that even though she does not have a Veses, her husband may keep her, and [have Bi'ah] through Bedikos, like R. Chanina ben Antigenus. Rashi explained like this below.

Rejection: The words connote that he does not come to teach a Heter [to keep her], rather, that she must check!

Answer: The Chidush is that when she does not have a Veses, even if she is sleeping, Bedikah is needed.

Explanation #1: There is no Isur of Nidah [when she is sleeping], but it is forbidden to have Bi'ah with a sleeping woman, like it says in Nedarim (20b).

Explanation #2: Here she is not totally asleep, but she is not so awake that she would know to answer whether or not she is Tehorah.

Question: He should establish it when she does not engage in Taharos!

Answer: [The Makshan] infers from the extra words "their wives are for them in Chezkas Taharah." Why does it need to teach further "and they come and may be [intimate] with them"? Rather, it is to reveal that we discuss one who engages in Taharos.

Implied question: Below (15a), it teaches that all women are in Chezkas Taharah, and it teaches after this "those who come from the road, their wives are for them in Chezkas Taharah." It taught both, even though we discuss one who does not engage in Taharos!

Answer: There it teaches that we do not distinguish between those who come from the road and people of the city.

Question: [Even] without Shmuel, we can ask that the Mishnah obligates Bedikah for one who engages in Taharos, against the Beraisa here!

Answer #1: We challenge Shmuel even when she is sleeping, when she does not have a Veses. However, the Mishnah does not discuss a sleeping woman. Also the Rashbam explained like this.

Comment - Answer #2: With difficulty, we could have established the Mishnah when she does not have a Veses. "Dayah Shaitah" applies only to "she must check", and no more (i.e. the other laws of our Mishnah apply even to women who are not Dayan Shaitan, e.g. they have no Veses)...

... Even though the simple meaning of our Mishnah is when she has a Veses, like we asked above "our Mishnah discusses when she has a Veses!"

Explanation: Since he came from the road, he appeases her and requests to have Bi'ah. If she already saw [blood], it crosses her mind that she had Hargashah at the time of the sighting, and she remembers;

However, if he did not come from the road, it is forbidden if she is awake, for he does not appease her very much for Bi'ah, rather, he has Bi'ah with her immediately, and it does not cross her mind to remember that she had Hargashah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [He asks if one should do] like this Beraisa, which requires Bedikah or request.

Question #1: Only when she is awake, he obligates Bedikah. If so, what did he answer "she is disgraced in his eyes"? Through request, she is not disgraced in his eyes!

Question #2: If we ask only to her husband, like it connotes that he asked to Bnei Bavel (who do not have Taharos), this is obvious, for he said above "any [woman] to her husband does not require Bedikah";

Also, one should not be stringent to check, for if so he will be worried and refrain, like [Rav Yehudah] said above.

If he asks about one who engages in Taharos, obviously she needs Bedikah, like the Mishnah says "and when she goes to have Bi'ah..."

Question #3: Why does he attribute his question on this Beraisa, since also our Mishnah obligates Bedikah for Taharos?

Explanation #2: [He asks] "may one do like this Beraisa, which does not require anything for one who is sleeping"? Perhaps even for her husband alone, he must wake her and request.

Implied question: Above, we said that even when she has no Veses, she does not need Bedikah for her husband when she is sleeping!

Answer #1: In any case, perhaps request is required.

Answer #2: Above, we discuss when he is in the city. If she were Temei'ah, she would have told him earlier. However, for one who came from the road, he should be concerned.

Implied question: Our Mishnah below (15a) says that those who come from the road, their wives have Chezkas Taharah!

Answer #1: Also that we can say that they do not require Bedikah, but they require request.

Answer #2: It is only regarding women who are awake.

Answer #3: It refers to one who has a Veses.

Explanation: If he must wake her until her mind settles to answer whether or not she is Tehorah [she will be disgraceful to him].

Explanation: Do they wake you until your minds are settled to answer whether you are Tehorah, e.g. if they used to come once a week or once a month, but not after a long time;

It says below (15a) "this is if he came within the days of her Onah. More than this, there is concern lest she saw in between."

Explanation: This refers to Nichsei Melug that [her husband] consumed, and [also] she does not have Din (the law that was enacted corresponding to his rights to eat) Peros, i.e. redemption (he must redeem her if she is captured);

We discuss whether or not he knew about her [that she does not have a Veses]. It is a Mekach Ta'os, and she pardoned to him, for she is pleased that she is called married, like it says about a Yevamah in Bava Metzi'a (67a);

Also when he knew about her, she does not get anything, like it says in Yevamos (85b) about Sheniyos l'Arayos (Arayos mid'Rabanan. They get no Kesuvah), for she entices him [to marry her], since her seed is Kosher.

Implied question: There is an opinion below (39a) that even according to R. Meir, a woman who does not have a Veses is permitted to have Bi'ah during the 11 days [of Zivah] between Nidah and Nidah, because she is Mesulekes Damim!

Answer: In any case, he must divorce her, for she causes him to sin on other days. Since he may not keep her, she has no Kesuvah. As long as he did not divorce her, he may have Bi'ah with her during those 11 days.

According to Aba Chanan, she has a Kesuvah, because she may have Bi'ah during the 11 days. Since it is proper to have Bi'ah with her, even though Chachamim decreed on him to divorce her, she does not lose her Kesuvah due to this.

Question: Since she does not claim a Kesuvah, he cannot malign [her children's lineage], like it says in Yevamos (65a) regarding a woman who [was divorced after 10 years of marriage without children, and similarly from a second husband] married a third husband and did not have children from him, and married a fourth husband and had children...

Citation (65a): We tell her 'your silence is better than your speech (to claim a Kesuvah from your third husband, now it is clear that she is not barren)' lest he malign [her children's lineage], and say "had I known [that you are not barren, I would not have divorced you]!'

The Gemara asks "if she is silent, are we silent?! (Even if her third husband does not say so, presumably he divorced her due to this mistake!) It answers that now she became healthy (fertile. Before, she truly was barren.)

Answer #1: Here, it is easy to return to her Veses through medications, and there is more La'az (scandalous talk). This is unlike a barren woman. There is no easy cure for her to come to fertility. Shamayim cured her.

Answer #2 (R. Shlomo of Daryush): Here, there is concern lest she get fixed and fix a Veses like it was close to the time of divorce. (E.g. the last time she became Nidah before divorce was on the sixth of the month, and from then every month she becomes Nidah on the sixth.) It is revealed that she became healthy while she was still married, and not [only] now;

Here it is not applicable to ask "are we silent?!" since we cannot say that now she became healthy, for since we say to him "know [that you may never remarry her], there is no La'az.

Support: Similarly, according to R. Yehudah in Gitin (46b), regarding an Ailonis, we cannot ask, even though it is only a suspicion that she is an Ailonis, for there is no cure for a Vadai Ailonis, and we cannot say that now she healed, for since we say to him "know...", he divorces her absolutely.

Distinction: However, if she claims a Kesuvah, he can say "with intent for this I did not divorce you."

Regarding one who married a fourth man, we need not say "know...", for he cannot malign, for we can say that now she healed.

If not for the reason "now she healed", even Rabanan, who are not concerned for ruin regarding an Ailonis, would not be silent;

Since the first and second already divorced her, it is evident that also the third divorced her due to [lack of] children, and there is La'az, if not for the reason "now she healed."

Explanation (Rashi): Rav Yehudah, who rules like R. Chanina, [and says] that the case is, she engages in Taharos, does not teach R. Aba bar Yirmeyah's teaching.

Question (Rashi): Rav Yehudah himself said in the name of Shmuel "this is only for Taharos"!

Answer (Rashi): There, Rav Yehudah teaches only that Bedikah is not needed for her husband.

Question: Our Mishnah discusses one who has a Veses, but if she does not have a Veses, we can say that she is forbidden, like R. Meir. If so, Shmuel, who establishes it even when she does not have a Veses, connotes that he holds like R. Chanina ben Antigenus!

Answer: Our Mishnah connotes properly also when she does not have a Veses. It says as follows. The one who is Dayah Shaitah has Bi'ah with Edim, and all the more so one who does not have a Veses.

Question: Why doesn't it answer here that one of these was said amidst (inferred from) the other, like we said above?

Answer: Above it is not explicit in the words of R. Aba bar Yirmeyah [citing Shmuel] that she does not need Bedikah for her husband [alone];

Even R. Aba did not distinguish [in his answer] to R. Zeira between when she has a Veses or does not, both for Taharos and for her husband [alone], because he inferred from Rav Yehudah that Bedikah is not needed for her husband [alone, even if she does not have a Veses];

However, here he explicitly said in the name of Shmuel that when she does not have a Veses, he may keep her if she checks. (This is exactly like ruling like R. Chanina.)

Implied question: Regarding the ruling like R. Chanina, why did he need to rule like R. Chanina, since he discusses one who engages in Taharos? Does he rule for the time of Mashi'ach?! (Nowadays, there are no Taharos!)

Answer: In Eretz Yisrael they always engaged in Taharos, like it said above "Chaverim in Galil prepare [wine and oil to be used for Nesachim] in Taharah."