Explanation #2 (R. Tam): The Gemara [in Nazir and Pesachim] asks [according to R. Yosi], how can a woman become a Zavah during the day, for it says "Kol Yemei Zov Tum'asah"?

We say below (73a) "I should say that a woman becomes a Zavah only if she sees during the day." I.e. through seeing during the day she becomes a Zavah.

Question: What was the answer "she saw two days Bein ha'Shemashos? Still, she had only two sightings during the day!

Answer: We must say that the Gemara was not concerned to mention the third day. Since it mentioned the second, automatically we know the third.

Observation: We must say so according to Rashi, for also in Nazir (16a) is this Sugya of Pesachim, and it answers that she saw three days close to Shki'ah, and there was not time that should be considered counting;

"Three" is not precise, for two suffice when she saw the second day until the night.

Explanation #3 (Ri): The Gemara [in Nazir and Pesachim] asks according to R. Yosi, how can a woman become a full Zavah, since R. Yosi holds that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo (part of a day is like the entire day) at the beginning of the day?

He said that a Zav who sees on day seven does not cancel the beginning of the day, and [the beginning of the day before he saw counts like a full day, and it] completes seven days. Likewise, the end of the day is like the entire day;

Even if she saw at night, it has no effect [to make her a Zavah]. Still, Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo, and the end of the day is Shimur [so it is as if she did not see on consecutive days]!

Support: It connotes like this in Nazir (16a). It says, according to R. Yosi... since she saw in the middle of the day, the other half of the day counts for Shimur;

Inference: The end of the day from midday and onwards counts like Shimur for the other (first) half.

It answers that she saw three days close to Shki'ah, and there was not time, i.e. at the end of the day [without seeing, to be considered Shimur, therefore] the day counts towards [consecutive] days of seeing.

Question: According to R. Yosi, we should ask "did he teach like the Kusim?!", for he holds Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo!

Above (69a), we established Rav's teaching [unlike the simple meaning of his words, in order that it will be] unlike the Kusim, and in Nazir, we establish Rav like R. Yosi!

Answer: [R. Yosi] holds that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo on the seventh day of a Zavah, which is the last day of her count, and similarly regarding Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom. Part of the day of counting counts, and does not cancel, i.e. she need not count more, and it is the end of her count;

However, at the beginning of the count we do not say that the end of the day on which she ceased seeing, is like the entire day.

Question: In Rosh Hashanah (10a), Rava said a Kal v'Chomer. A Nidah, the beginning of the day does not count for her at the end of her count (she may not immerse during the seventh day), but the end of the day counts for her at the beginning (the day she became Nidah is considered the first day of Nidah, even if she saw in the middle or at the end of the day)...

A year [of an animal, regarding Korbanos], that the first day counts for it at the end (if a bull must be three years old, it suffices to be two years and a day. The day is considered like a year), all the more so the last day should count for it at the beginning! (If it was born on the last day of the year, that day should count like a year.)

What was [Rava's] question? A Zavah disproves this, according to R. Yosi. The beginning of the day counts for her at the end of her count, but the end of the day does not count for her at the beginning (the day she ceased seeing cannot count towards her seven clean days)!

Answer #1 (Ri): Rava said according to Rabanan, and not according to R. Yosi.

Answer #2: Even according to R. Yosi, Zavah does not refute [what we learn from] Nidah. Regarding Nidah, it is proper that the first day count. Why shouldn't it be like all Tum'os, which do not require clean days?

However, Zavah requires clean days. Granted, at the end of the count, it counts [for a day] immediately once the seventh day enters in Taharah. In any case, the day she ceases seeing, which is not Tahor, it is not proper that it count towards the number of clean days.

Question: What did Beis Shamai think? Surely we can ask this also against them!

Answer: Beis Shamai held that day 11, which is mid'Oraisa, if we are stringent to be Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav (for one who immersed the following night), people will come to say that there is a Chiyuv Korban;

Note: Beis Shamai hold that there is a Chiyuv Korban! Tosfos explains their challenge to Beis Hillel. If you are Metamei, since your followers know that some (i.e. Beis Shamai) hold that day 11 requires Shimur mid'Oraisa, they may come to think that there is a Chiyuv Korban, and bring Chulin b'Azarah. You hold that there is no Korban!

However, [if she immersed] the next day, all know that it is mid'Rabanan. They will not come to obligate a Korban [even] if we are stringent to be Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav.

Question: Just the contrary! What is Rav Huna's source [that Beis Shamai are Metamei] within 11 days if she [immersed on the next day, and] did not see? (It is unreasonable to decree that after the days of Zivah is more stringent than during the days of Zivah!)

Answer: This is what [Abaye] said "this was Rav Kahana's question", i.e. against Rav Huna. [Abaye added that] also, a Beraisa is unlike Rav Huna.

Question: If so, we conclude that a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom on her second day, one who has Bi'ah with her is not Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav;

A Beraisa says that if she immersed the next day, had Bi'ah and afterwards saw, they are Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav. The plural "they are Metamei" connotes that it refers to both she and the one who had Bi'ah with her!

Note: Sometimes the plural is used, and it refers to only one matter discussed, whenever it occurs (e.g. Kidushin 51b). However, if here it meant that whenever this occurs, she is Metamei, it should have used the feminine "Metam'os".

Suggestion: When she saw is different.

Rejection: We resolve Rav Yosef, and reject Rav Kahana!

Answer #1: This conclusion here is to resolve Rav Huna's teaching, so the Beraisa will not be difficult for him. However, Rav Yosef's words are rejected.

Support: This is better for Rav Huna [to say that Rav Yosef is rejected], so we will not ask what is his Chidush. Surely it is different when she saw, like Abaye explained Rav Kahana's objection;

Rav Huna holds that regarding the Bo'el, which is not common, we should say that when she saw is different, but she frequently sees blood, so even if she did not see, we decree due to when she saw.

This is like we decree when she saw on day 12 due to seeing within 11 days, even though seeing on the 12th does not cancel [her Shimur. It does not make her a Zavah].

Answer #2 (Ri): Even if Rav Yosef's words are accepted, it is fine. Our Mishnah is not difficult;

Surely, on the next day, i.e. the 12th, it is common for one to have Bi'ah with her, since there is no Isur Torah. The Bo'el is Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav, even though she did not see;

However, during the 11 days, on her second say (the day after she saw), even though regarding her we do not distinguish based on whether or not she saw, in a case the Bo'el is Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav only if she saw.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Why is the Bo'el different, that he is not Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav?

Question: This is what we ask below "why is the Bo'el different, that he is not Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav?"!

Answer: Initially, we asked due to him. When we answer that blood is not common for him (and in any case it is not Metamei him at all), we ask due to her. (Mesores Moshe - we asked that we should decree that he is Metamei Mishkav (u'Moshav), lest he consider himself totally Tahor. Then we ask that we should decree about him, lest she think that she is not Metamei Mishkav. Tosfos ha'Rosh - Rashi answered this. First we asked why he is not Metamei Mishkav. Then we ask why she is Metamei Mishkav, but she is not Metamei him, even to be a Rishon due to touching her.)

Explanation #2 (Ri): What is different about him - he sees one sighting of Zov, and we are Toleh Mishkevos and Moshvos between the first and second sightings. He is Metamei on condition that he will see. If he will not see, they are Tehorim;

Why is she different? When she sees in the 11 days, she is Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav even if she does not see, according to Rav Huna!

Question: However, this is different. There, when she sees, she cancels. Therefore, they were stringent when she did not see. However, a Zav, even if he sees, he does not cancel!

Explanation #3: What is different about her? When she immersed the day after 11 days and saw, she is Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav [unconditionally] without Teliyah, even though also there, there is no canceling!

[The Makshan] challenges this Perush [of Rav Huna], that "she saw' is not precise. However, according to the other Perush (Rav Kahana), that we say that when she saw is different, but if she did not see, we are Toleh, he and she are the same.

Explanation #1: So he heard from his Rebbi, and adopted this text.

Explanation #2: R. Akiva argued with him about all three of these, like it says below about the 11th day. It is a tradition according to R. Elazar ben Azaryah, and R. Akiva learns it from a verse;

The same applies to the third (a Revi'is for a Nazir), even though we do not find [that they argued about this].

Question: What do R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about?

R. Elazar ben Azaryah discusses only the number of days within the 11 to which Zivah applies, but he does not discuss at all Shimur of the 11th!

Strengthening of question: Also below connotes like this. It says "these are [learned from] verses!"

If [R. Elazar ben Azaryah] discusses the Halachah, we should answer that the verse teaches about the number of days that she [can become] a Zivah, and the Halachah teaches about Shimur of the 11th!

Answer: Surely, the Halachah that R. Elazar ben Azaryah said discusses only the number of days to which Zivah applies. R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about mere reasoning;

R. Yochanan says that since the day after 11 is Nidah (if she will see then), the 11th does not require counting (Shimah the next day);

Reish Lakish holds that [day 11] does not become even Shimur for the 10th, since it cannot join to make a Zavah Gedolah, since there are only two days.

Support: Now it is fine, for the Gemara properly asks "these are [learned from] verses!"