Question: In Kidushin (79a), Rashi explained that the text does not say so, for even without "only", it connotes that there are no more [than six months between Na'arus and Bagrus]!

Answer: If not for "only", we could have explained that the minimal time between Na'arus and Bagrus is six months, which would properly connote that it can be more.

Inference: Below, we conclude "do you think that there was one Onah every three months?" This implies that initially he held so.

Consequence: You are forced to say that either the first of Katnus (while she was a minor) was six months before the second, and the rest were three months apart, or the fourth was six months after the third, and the others were three months apart.

Proof: If not, they were not amidst 12 months. (If each was three months after the previous, they spanned only nine months!)

Question: If so, when we conclude that there were three in Na'arus, and there was one Onah every two months, there was no need to change the order of Onos. Rather, there was one Onah every three months;

The first was before Na'arus, the second was at the beginning of Na'arus, the third was in the middle of Na'arus, three months after it, and the fourth was at the end of Na'arus!

Answer: The Gemara prefers to equate the intervals between Bi'os as much as it can.

Implied question: The Bi'ah of Katnus must be six months before Na'arus. If not, they did not span 12 months!

Answer: In any case, it seems that it is not precise that he had Bi'ah only six months before Na'arus, for even if he had Bi'ah the entire time of Katnus, it says that it [counts] only like one Bi'ah. (Indeed, the first Bi'ah was six months before Na'arus, just there are other Bi'os during Katnus that are not counted among the four.)

Therefore, if each was three months apart, the second [Bi'ah counted, i.e.] at the beginning of Na'arus would be close to the last Bi'ah of Katnus. Therefore, it says that every two months was one Onah;

The second will be at the end of two months of Na'arus, [two months] distanced from the end of Katnus. The third was the end of four months [of Na'arus], and the fourth was at the end of six months. The distances were the same - two months in between.

Explanation: Also in the initial Havah Amina that every three months is one Onah, they were equal in this way;

[The first Bi'ah was three months] before the end of Katnus. The Bi'os [of Katnus] continued until the end of Katnus; they are counted like only one Bi'ah. From there, [the next was] after three months, in the middle of Na'arus, and from there three months until the end of Na'arus, and the fourth was three months into Bagrus;

Alternatively, the first was at the end of Katnus. The second was in the middle of Na'arus, the third was at the end of Na'arus, and the fourth was six months into Bagrus.

Question: Even if [Minyamin Saksana'ah] did not distinguish between one who saw and one who did not see, in any case he may not rule like Rav, for we conclude below (65b) that Rav and Shmuel both say that the Halachah is that he has Bi'as Mitzvah and separates!

Answer: If Minyamin would rule unlike the teaching below [of Rav and Shmuel], Shmuel would not be adamant, for in any case [Minyamin] rules like our Mishnah;

However, Minyamin wanted to rule like something that Rav never said. Shmuel was adamant about this.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Adashin is the winepress itself, in which the grapes are put.

Citation (Avodah Zarah 75a) Question (to R. Avahu): What is the law of Gorgei of Nochrim?

Rashi and the Aruch explained that Gorgei are Akalim (nets of poles tied around grapes or olives being pressed). [R. Avahu] resolved this from our Beraisa of ha'Dapin veha'Lulavim... one dries the Akalim.

Pesak: Rashi explained there that since he resolved from this Beraisa, this shows that it is primary. Therefore, we rely on it to permit a winepress through rinsing it;

We do not rely on the Beraisa above (Avodah Zarah 74b) of a winepress and Machatz (a Kli used to draw wine from the pit, to put it in barrels), which says that if they are of wood or stone, he dries them and they are Tehorim.

Objection #1: This is astounding, if he brings the Beraisa of Dapin regarding Akalim, which no one argues about, [to teach how we rule] about other matters, about which the other Beraisa disagrees! There is no reason to rely on [the Beraisa of Akalim]!

Defense (of Rashi's Pesak): However, because we follow the lenient opinion in mid'Rabanan laws, we can rule like [the Beraisa of Akalim].

Objection #2: Also, in the Tosefta of Taharos (11:16), the text [of the Beraisa cited here] says "ha'Dapin veha'Lulavim veha'Adashin, one dries them and they are Tehorim." (This shows that rinsing does not suffice for a winepress!)

Explanation #2 (Ri): Even if the text [of the Tosefta] says "one rinses them", like the text of Seforim, this is not difficult for the Beraisa above (74b, which says that one must dry a winepress). Adashin is not the winepress itself, rather, a ring of mud that weighs on the grapes in the pit to press them.

Support: The Aruch (Erech Talfach) explained like this. It is the Yam (tub), for it says in Bava Basra (67b) "what is the Yam? It is Talfacha."

Because it is round (like lentils), it is called Adashim and Talfacha (lentils, in Hebrew and Arame'ic). It is called Yam, for grapes are pressed through it, and it fills with wine like water covers the sea.

Implied question: Why didn't it teach the law of the winepress here (in our Beraisa, i.e. the Tosefta)?

Answer: This is because it is heavy and it is not moved so much, and it is guarded from Tum'ah more than all Kelim of the winepress, which everyone touches them.

Support: Similarly, in Bava Basra there was no need to teach the law of the olivepress (regarding what is sold with an olivepress), for it is obvious that he sold the olivepress itself.

Implied question: The Gemara there taught [that if one sold an olivepress,] he sold the Yekavim. This is the olivepress, like the Rashbam explained!

Answer: No, it is like the Aruch explained. It is baskets in which they bring olives to the olivepress.

Explanation #3 (R. Tam): This Beraisa (in our Sugya) discusses Kelim of the olivepress (not of a winepress), like it says in Bava Metzi'a (74a) regarding Ma'atan (a container of olives) "[the olives] must be warmed, brought to the Bei Dapi..." (I.e. Dapin mentioned here are for olives.)

Regarding a container of grapes, it says that they must be brought to the Bei Ma'atzarta (winepress).

Similarly, Adashin in Bava Basra (67b) is mentioned regarding the olivepress, for it says that one who sold an olivepress, he sold the Yam, and it explains that Yam is Talfacha, i.e. Adashin mentioned here.

Similarly, we find Akalim in an olivepress, in Sanhedrin (26a) [that one who takes branches from his vineyard in Shemitah can say] "I need it for Ekel of the olivepress", and in Bava Kama (115b) it says "when Ekel of the olivepress is wrapped around [the barrel]."

Implied question: [The Beraisa here] initially mentioned a Tamei winepress and olivepress! (Why does it explain only Kelim of the olivepress?)

Answer: It omitted [explaining] a winepress, like it says in Yevamos (38b) that Beis Shamai [asked what is the law of] the Kesuvah, but then omitted [explaining it].

Question #1: These are different! There, even though Beis Shamai omitted [explaining the law of the Kesuvah], Beis Hillel taught it. Here, why was a winepress mentioned at all, if not to teach something about it?

Answer: Rather, you must say that it teaches about an olivepress, and we learn that the same applies to a winepress.

Question #2: If we discuss only an olivepress, how did [R. Avahu, in Avodah Zarah 75a] resolve the law of Gorgi of Nochrim, i.e. Ekalin of a winepress regarding Yayin Nesech, from Ekalin of the Beraisa, which discusses Kelim of the olivepress?

Answer: Rather, you must say that it teaches about an olivepress, and from it we learn about a winepress and similar matters.

Support: Also R. Shimon ben Gamliel said that [one must wait] from one season of pressing grapes until the next, and from one season of pressing olives until the next, for their laws are the same.

Observation (Ri): Even according to Rashi, who explains that Adashin is the winepress, and according to the text of Seforim, which says [in the Beraisa here] "he rinses them", it does not argue with the Beraisa of a winepress and Machatz, which says that he dries them and they are Tehorim;

There (that Beraisa) discusses of Nochrim. Therefore, we are stringent to dry them, even though they are not coated with pitch, like it teaches there "if they are coated with pitch, they are forbidden";

[The Beraisa cited] here discusses of Yisrael, and a Nochri touched them, like it says "one whose winepress or olivepress was Tamei", therefore rinsing suffices.

Support: We must say so according to Rava, who said there [in Avodah Zarah] "we learned", i.e. that he must dry them, "only if he coated them with pitch, but not if he pressed without coating with pitch";

Contradiction: In this Beraisa, it teaches "if they are of wood or stone, he dries them and they are Tehorim. If they were coated them with pitch, they are forbidden." This shows that drying is needed even if they were not coated with pitch!

Resolution: The Beraisa [there] discusses of Nochrim.

Question: How did [R. Avahu] resolve the law of Gorgei (Akalim) of Nochrim from the law of Akalim in the Beraisa of our Sugya? Perhaps we are more stringent about those of Nochrim!

Answer #1: Even though in a winepress we distinguish between of Yisrael and of Nochrim, there are matters in which it is not feasible to distinguish, e.g. flasks and something in which [wine] is kept for a long time. Chachamim decreed even [if it was stored] for a short time, whether it is a Yisrael's or a Nochri's;

Therefore, [R. Avahu] properly brought a proof from Akalim.

Answer #2: [R. Avahu was asked about] Gorgei of kinds of Shifa or Gemi (kinds of reeds). He brought a proof that even of Yisrael, he dries them for 12 months.

Question: There is a great difference between them! The first Tana requires 12 months, and R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that when it became Tamei in this pressing season, he uses it in the next pressing season. If so, [the delay] is from the end of [this] pressing season until the beginning of the [next] pressing season. The entire duration of the pressing season is lacking from a year!

Answer #1: [The Makshan] holds that the first Tana is not stringent [to require] more than 12 lunar months. Peros ripen according to [the year of] the sun. If so, from the end of [this] pressing season until the beginning of the [next] pressing season are 12 lunar months. (This assumes that the pressing season lasts 11 days.)

[The Tartzan] answers that they argue about Peros that ripen early or late. I.e. last year they were late and this year they were early, and there are less than 12 lunar months from pressing season to pressing season.

Answer #2: It is obvious to [the Makshan] that the first Tana did not mean 12 months from when the winepress is emptied, for if so the harvest [of next year] is finished, and he cannot use it until 24 months, and that is another pressing season!

Rather, the 12 months that the first Tana said is with the time that the wine is inside, i.e. like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who says until the coming pressing season.

[The Tartzan] answers that they argue about Peros that ripen early or late, like Rashi explained. 'Early" is when this year's harvest is before last year's. R. Shimon ben Gamliel is lenient, for there are not 12 months.

"Late" is when this year's harvest is after last year's. R. Shimon ben Gamliel is stringent, but the first Tana also admits that as long as there are 12 months, including the time that the wine is in the winepress, this suffices. This is a leniency.

Explanation (Ri): This is not only when four nights finished. The same applies from every night among the four to the next day, for if she saw during the day, she is Temei'ah according to Levi, who said four Onos;

And even according to Rav, who says that she did not lose nights, in any case he admits that if [the appearance] changed, the sighting is Temei'ah. Therefore, she must check, lest it changed.

Implied question: Also at night, if it changed she is Temei'ah!

Answer: Even so, she need not check at night, but during the day she must check. We do not rely to say that since she spurts, it is Dam Besulim.

Observation: This Bedikah is even according to Rabanan who argue below R. Meir, who say that all blood has the same appearance.

Source #1: Surely they hold like was taught above (11a) if the appearance of her blood changed, she is Temei'ah.

Source #2: Below they do not argue when the blood changed from its initial appearance, only if both this [what was found now] and the first resemble Dam Nidah.

Explanation: R. Meir is stringent about all of them like Beis Shamai. In every argument between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in our Mishnah, he is stringent;

Only in those four nights of a girl whose time to see did not arrive, and in the night of a girl whose time to see arrived, R. Meir is Metaher. Even if it resembles Dam Nidah, we attribute it to Dam Besulim;

Other sightings about which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel differ, e.g. from four nights until the wound heals for a girl whose time to see did not arrive, or from the first night until four nights if her time to see arrived...

According to Beis Shamai we do not attribute at all to Dam Besulim. According to Beis Hillel, we attribute to Besulim, even if it resembles Dam Nidah;

There, R. Meir distinguishes. If it resembles Dam Nidah, she is Temei'ah. Even though during the four nights or night we would have attributed to Dam Besulim, now we do not attribute;

If all the blood after the four nights or night resembles Dam Besulim, it is Tahor.

Chachamim say that all blood has the same appearance. They hold totally like Beis Hillel. We always attribute to Dam Besulim until the wound heals or until four nights, as long as the blood does not change from how it was.

Chachamim properly hold like was taught above (11a), that if the appearance of her blood changed, she is Temei'ah. This is unlike Rashi, who says that even if it changed from what the appearance of her blood was, she is Tehorah according to Rabanan.

Question: What is the Chidush of this Bedikah? Even if during the time that we attribute to Dam Besulim, e.g. if her time to see did not arrive, according to Beis Hillel we attribute to Dam Besulim until the wound heals, it says above (11b) that a Besulah checks morning and evening, lest the appearance of her blood changed;

All the more so after the time that we attribute to Dam Besulim passed, she must check, for this Bedikah [of the Beraisa] is in the morning!

Suggestion: It mentioned it because she is spurting. Since she is spurting, we should attribute to Dam Besulim past the time like during the time.

Rejection: Just the contrary! Since even when she does not feel any sighting, she must check, all the more so when she feels a sighting!

Answer #1: We establish the Bedikah above, morning and evening, for Taharos, but for her husband, she does not require Bedikah.

Answer #2: This Bedikah is with a tube, [to see] if the blood came from the Makor or [the walls on] the sides. The Tosefta connotes like this.

Support: This is why the Seifa teaches that Dam Nidah comes from the Makor.