Explanation #1 (Rashi): [She is concerned for her sighting] regarding me'Es la'Es.

Implied question: We hold like R. Dosa, that a woman who has a Veses is Dayah Shaitah!

Answer: Not at the time of her Veses, he agrees that she is Metamei retroactively.

Explanation #2: Here we discuss that she is confused about her count (when she began the days of Nidah].

Explanation: Now we are thinking that it mentioned that she saw to teach that she is concerned for her sighting, and we do not consider her like one who Vadai saw from the time of the Veses;

The same applies when she did not see, she is concerned.

Question: How does However, want to prove that Vestos d'Oraisa? Even if Vestos d'Rabanan, since she saw now, she is Temei'ah also from the time of the Veses, due to Safek!

Answer: That is only for Taharos, but she is not confused about her count.

Question: Above (15a), Rav Huna said "this is only when the time of her Veses did not come...", and [the Gemara said] "this shows that Vestos d'Oraisa"!

Answer #1: Here he said in the name of Rav, but he himself disagrees. According to Rav there are two versions below.

Answer #2: Above is like the first version here.

Pesak: Vestos d'Rabanan.

Source #1: Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, who is Basra, holds that according to Rav, Vestos d'Rabanan, and in Bechoros (49b), we rule like Rav [when he argues with Shmuel] in Isurim.

Source #2: We hold like R. Yehoshua (who holds that Vestos d'Rabanan) below against R. Eliezer, and like Chachamim against R. Meir.

Implied question: Below (39a), in the Reisha of the Mishnah of one who was hiding, it says that if the time of her Veses came and she did not check, she is Temei'ah!

Answer: In any case, it seems that the Halachah is that Vestos d'Rabanan, like I explained;

Further, some establish [even the Reisha, on 39a] like R. Meir [and Chachamim disagree].

Support (for Pesak): Also the She'altos [rules that Vestos d'Rabanan], and also R. Chananel.

Consequence: A woman who has a Veses and did not check himself at the time of her Veses, and afterwards she checked herself and found that she is Tehorah, she is Tehorah to her husband;

However, it seems that l'Chatchilah she must check at the time of the Veses.

Explanation: It seems that [she is Tehorah] only when she feels that this blood came from the wound, and even so, if it is the time of her Veses, or Vestos d'Oraisa, we are concerned that the blood came from the Makor;

However, if she does not feel the blood leaving the wound, all agree that she is Temei'ah if it is the time of her Veses.

Proof: If not, will she never be Nidah? Before the wound, she had a Veses!

Explanation: R. Shimon ben Gamliel teaches like he taught elsewhere (below, 66a, that blood of a wound that comes from the Makor is Tamei).

Implied question #1: It is Tum'as Beis ha'Starim!

Implied question #2: Below (55b), we say that blood [of a wound] requires a Revi'is [to have Tum'ah]. Here we say that it is Tamei, even though there is not a Revi'is, like it says below (41b) that if two [tiny] drops like pearls exuded from the Makor, she is Temei'ah!

Answer: Perhaps here it is a tradition from Sinai that the Makor is Tamei and she is Tehorah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): She needs two new Edim - one before Bi'ah, and one after Bi'ah. She hides it away until morning [and then looks at it];

Beis Hillel say, two Edim suffice for her for the entire night- one before the first Bi'ah, and one after the last Bi'ah.

Question #1: Before Bi'ah, only Tzenu'os require new Edim!

Question #2: Rashi explained that Beis Hillel do not require checking for each Bi'ah. Above, we said that women who are not Tzenu'os, the same Ed they used before this Bi'ah, they use before another Bi'ah;

Inference: They check before every Bi'ah!

Answer (to Question #2): We could say that [women who are not Tzenu'os, the same Ed they used before Bi'ah,] they use before Bi'ah on another night.

Question #3: How does she know what will be the last Bi'ah, to check after it?

Suggestion: She checks in the morning, when she rises [from the bed].

Rejection: If so, she does not check right after Bi'ah, to know if he was Bo'el Nidah to be Metamei him for seven days!

Question #4: Beis Shamai say "perhaps semen will cover [a drop of blood] in the second Bi'ah;

They should have said "in the last Bi'ah", since Beis Hillel hold that she does not check until after the last Bi'ah!

Question #5: Beis Hillel said "Nimok" (perhaps blood was dissolved in semen), and Beis Shamai used a different expression, lest [semen] cover [a drop];

Also Beis Shamai should have discussed "Nimok", since they discuss blood in the womb, and not on the Ed, for Beis Hillel do not require Bedikah after the first Bi'ah! (This Dibur continues on Amud B.)

Question #6: It says "from all of their words, we learn that a Ba'al Nefesh (pious person) should not have Bi'ah and repeat (another Bi'ah), i.e. without checking in between, even [not for Taharos, rather,] just for her husband;

Beis Hillel do not require [checking] even for Taharos!

Explanation #2 (Ri, Rashbam): Beis Shamai require two new Edim after Bi'ah - one for him, and one for her;

The Mishnah says "she needs." This means that she prepares, like the Mishnah teaches "Benos Yisrael have Bi'ah with two Edim - one for him, and one for her;

Implied question: Only Tzenu'os require a new Ed before Bi'ah!

Answer: This is because the Ed is not so dirty. However, after Bi'ah, it is dirty with semen. They need a new Ed every time.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Beis Hillel say, two Edim suffice for the entire night. They agree that she must check after every Bi'ah, but they do not require new [Edim];

The reason is because after Bi'ah, there is much filth from semen, and there is no gain from using a new Ed. Perhaps even Tzenu'os do not require new [Edim] after Bi'ah. Now, everything is fine.

Explanation: [He should not have a second Bi'ah] unless he checks, lest due to desire of Bi'ah she saw;

This is only for a Ba'al Nefesh, for also R. Zeira knew that Bedikah is not needed for her husband.

Rava said that even a Ba'al Nefesh should not [be stringent for this], lest he will be worried and refrain.

Question: How does the Beraisa support this? Perhaps the Beraisa does not discuss a Ba'al Nefesh, rather, Stam people, or the first Bi'ah!

Answer: "However, she is permitted to her husband" connotes a total Heter for everyone, even for the second Bi'ah.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): She checked before Bi'ah and the Ed was lost before Bi'ah. She may not have Bi'ah until she checks a second time;

However, after Bi'ah, even if the Ed was not lost, she must check before [another] Bi'ah.

R. Ila asks properly from our Mishnah, even though our Mishnah does not discuss the Ed before Bi'ah, rather, the Ed after Bi'ah. (The Ed after Bi'ah is like an Ed before the next Bi'ah, and our Mishnah does not require that she see it before the next Bi'ah

Explanation #2: Here we discuss the Ed after Bi'ah. If it was lost, it is forbidden to have Bi'ah until she checks, even if he wants to have Bi'ah immediately after the first Bi'ah;

However, if it was not lost, she is permitted. Why should she check twice, once immediately after the other?

Distinction: However, there is no angel appointed over birth, like it says in Ta'anis (2a) that there are three keys in Hash-m's hand - of birth, rain and Techiyas ha'Mesim;

Also these three keys, sometimes he hands them over to a Shali'ach tmp, for Eliyahu had in his hand the key of rain, and he revived a Mes, and also Elisha and several Tzadikim [revived Mesim];

Af Beri, the minister of rain, acts only with Hash-m's permission.

Implied question: In Kesuvos (39a) it says that everything is bi'Ydei Shamayim, except for chills and fevers!

Answer: Here we discuss a person's dispositions and traits. There we discuss happenings, like illnesses and punishments. Everything is decreed on him and he cannot be careful;

It says in Chulin (7b) that one does not stub his finger below, until it is announced about him from above, except for chills and fevers, from which he can guard himself.

Question: Chizkiyah [ha'Melech] saw (through Ru'ach ha'Kodesh) that he will have an improper son. This shows that it [can be] decreed before birth that people will not fear Shamayim!

Answer: They showed him what will be in the future. Further, many things depend on Mazel. (Maharam - we asked that Chizkiyah knew through prophecy that his son will be a Rasha, i.e. this was bi'Ydei Shamayim. We answer that based on his Mazel, he knew that his children will be Resha'im. Below, Tosfos explains why what depends on Mazel is not called bi'Ydei Shamayim.)

It says in Shabbos (156a) that one who is born in the Mazal of Tzedek will be a Tzadkan in Mitzvos (give Tzedakah). One who is born on Shabbos will be called Kadosh. Also, astrologers told Rav Nachman's mother "your son will be a thief."

This is not [called] bi'Ydei Shamayim, because Hash-m does not want to change the motion of the Mazalos.

Explanation (Aruch): They complain about him even in the drinking house.