ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) The Reisha of the current Beraisa (Tinokes) states 'Avru Alehah Shalosh Onos, Dayah Sha'atah'. We now ask whether, if she has a sighting when the next Onah arrives (rather than the three Onos later referred to by the Tana) - she will have the Din of Dayah Sha'atah, or of Me'es Le'es ... .
(b) We think that, perhaps the Din of Me'es Le'es will apply - because this is implied by the fact that the Tana continues 've'Od Avru alehah Shalosh Onos'.
(c) And the reason for that is - because the author is Rebbi Eliezer, who holds that whereas on the one hand, skipping three Onos results in Dayah Sha'atah, on the other, the next sighting reverts to Me'es Le'es (and she did, after all, see three times initially, even though she was still a Ketanah).
(d) And the reason that (in 've'Od Avru alehah ... ') we rule Dayah Sha'atah, at the next sighting, at the end of second three Onos - is because Rebbi Eliezer holds that skipping three Onos always results in Dayah Sha'atah (because it proves that there was Siluk Damim), until it happens twice (according to Rebbi) or three times (according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).
(a) Rav Gidal resolves the She'eilah - according to the first side (Dayah Sha'atah the first and second times and Me'es Le'es the third time) ...
(b) ... and the reason that the Tana saw fit to insert that another three Onos passed is - to teach us that even there, where the sighting at the end of three Onos may constitute a change of Veses (and not Siluk Damim), we still say Dayah Sha'atah (how much more so if she would have seen at the next Onah ([like Rav Gidal Amar Rav]), where it is clear that the previous break was Siluk Damim.
(c) We ask the same She'eilah about the Onah after 've'Od Avru Alehah Shalosh Onos, Dayah Sha'atah' (instead of after the third three Onos, where we rule Me'es Le'es). The Din here might nevertheless be ...
1. ... Dayah Sha'atah - because even though by three Onos, where a change of Veses has been established, it is feasible to rule Me'es Le'es, here, where no such thing happened, the girl reverts to her original status of Ketanah, and the Din Dayah Sha'atah remains.
2. ... Me'es Le'es, in spite of what we just said - because we decline to be so lenient with her, but after giving her the Din of Dayah Sha'atah following the first three Onos, we will require Me'es Le'es, should she sight blood after the next Onah (like Rebbi Eliezer rules in the case of a Gedolah).
(d) According to the latter side of the She'eilah, the Beraisa refers to after three Onos (and not after one) - to preclude the theory that whenever a sighting follows a break, we say Dayah Sha'atah.
(a) In resolving the She'eilah, Rav Kahana Amar Gidal Amar Rav ruled - Dayah Sha'atah the first time, and Me'es Le'es, the second.
(b) We already cited the proof that the Reisha (which we just discussed) goes like Rebbi, and the Seifa (in connection with a Gedolah ['Avru alehah Shalosh Onos ve'Ra'asah, Dayah Sha'atah'], like Rebbi Eliezer, and we refute the suggestion that the author is Rebbi, who holds like Rebbi Eliezer regarding three Onos - on the basis of the Beraisa, that we already cited, where Rebbi expressed regret at having ruled like Rebbi Eliezer Lechatchilah.
(c) There no proof from the Reisha that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Eliezer (even though earlier, we assumed that it is) - since the author may well be the Chachamim, who will concede there that after three Onos we say Dayah Sha'atah, since she reverts to her status of Ketanah.
(d) To resolve the apparent discrepancy, we therefore establish the Beraisa - like Rebbi Eliezer, who holds like Rebbi regarding Onos (that two Onos create a Chazakah, as it does by everything else).
(a) If the Ketanah in the Reisha of the Beraisa discovers a Kesem on her clothes between the first and second sightings, she is Tahor.
(b) Should she discover it between the second and third sightings, Chizkiyah rules that she is Tamei - just as she would be if she were to see then.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan holds - that seeing as she does not yet have a Chezkas Tum'ah (until the next sighting), the Kesem is Tahor.
(a) Rebbi Ila'i queries Chizkiyah however, from the Din of a Besulah who, on the first night of her wedding, discovers a Kesem - in which case, she is Tahor ...
(b) ... even though if she were to see blood that is different than the Dam Besulim that she saw during Tashmish, she would be Tamei (a Kashya on Chizkiyah).
(c) Rebbi Zeira answers - 'Zu Shirfah Matzuy, Zu Ein Shirfah Matzuy', by which he means that the case of Dam Besulim is different, inasmuch as it is common, and that is why we presume that that is what the Kesem comprises (see also Mesores ha'Shas in the name of the Aruch).
(a) Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak rules that the spit and the Medras (where she walked) in the market of a small girl who has already had two sightings beforehand - are Tahor.
(b) Ula added her Kesamim to the list - but he was not sure as to whether this was also in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak or whether is was Rebbi Yochanan's own addition.
(c) It is important to know this - because he argued with Chizkiyah in this matter on the previous Amud, and if he said it in somebody else's name, then it becomes a majority opinion and we will rule it (despite the fact that Chizkiyah was Rebbi Yochanan's Rebbi).
(d) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he and all the sailors stated - that Rebbi Yochanan had indeed said it in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak.
(a) Rav Chilkiyah bar Tuvi rules that even if a girl under bas-Mitzvah sights blood for seven consecutive days - it is only considered one sighting (and the Din Dayah Sha'atah will remain in effect until the blood stops and she has another two sightings).
(b) The problem with the Lashon 'even' is - its implication that this ruling would certainly apply if she were to sight it intermittently, which is obviously not true.
(c) We solve the problem - by amending the statement to read 'a girl under bas-Mitzvah and one who saw blood for seven consecutive days ... '.
(a) The problem with Rav Shimi bar Chiya's statement, that if the blood drips (rather than flows) it is not considered a sighting ('Medalefes Einah ke'Ro'ah) is - that in fact, she did see, so how can one say that she did not.
(b) The implications of the initial amendment ('Medalefes Einah ke'Shofa'as Ela ke'Posekes') are - that the 'Shofa'as' of Rav Chilkiyah bar Tuvi means that the blood literally flowed for seven days.
(c) The problem with this is - that it is physically impossible for this to occur without causing the girl's death.
(d) So we finally amend it to read - 'Medalefes Einah Ela ke'Shofa'as'.
(a) The Beraisa rules - that girls who have not yet reached the age of Nidus have a Chezkas Taharah, and do not require inspection (for Taharos), whereas those who have, have a Chezkas Tum'ah and must be examined by other women.
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, this examination should not be performed with their hands - because it will cause bleeding, which will cause her to be declared Tamei, even though she is not.
(c) They perform it instead - by rubbing oil (which will draw any loose blood) on the inside of the womb, and then examining the oil.
(a) A Beraisa expert cited a Beraisa before Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi - which rules Dayah Sha'atah in the case of a Me'uberes and a Menikah who skipped three Onos.
(b) From the fact that the Beraisa expert ended with 'Dayah Sha'atah' (in the singular) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi extrapolated - that he is really talking about a Me'uberes who became a Menikah (or vice-versa) ...
(c) ... either of whom would have the same Din.
(d) And the Beraisa found it necessary present the Din when she is both - to teach us that we even combine the sightings of one with those of the other.
(a) Besides skipping two of one and one of the other (or vice-versa) - it is possible to skip one and a half of one, and one and a half of the other (should she skip half an Onah during the pregnancy, say, and the other half after she gives birth and begins to feed.
(b) The problem with the case of a Me'uberes followed by a Menikah is - how it is possible to combine a sightless Onah of feeding following a pregnancy since, once she gives birth, she inevitably sights blood.
(c) One possible answer is in the case of a 'dry' birth (where she saw no blood). Alternatively, we might establish the case even by a regular birth - by differentiating between the blood of Nidus and that of birth (i.e. the latter does not interfere with the Chazakah of not sighting).
(d) The third answer is - to erase 'Yemei Menikusah Olin lah li'Yemei Iburah' from the Beraisa.
(a) Our Mishnah confines the Din of Dayah Sha'atah to the first sighting, but when she sees a second time, the Din of Me'es Le'es will come into effect. When Rav comments 'a'Kulhu' - he means that this ruling pertains to all four women listed in the Mishnah.
(b) Shmuel maintains - that it only pertains to a Besulah and a Zekeinah (but a Me'uberes and a Menikah will enjoy the Din of Dayah Sha'atah throughout the period of their pregnancy and feeding, respectively).
(c) Resh Lakish too, says 'a'Kulhu' - whilst Rebbi Yochanan confines it to a Besulah and a Zekeinah.
(d) And we cite a Beraisa to corroborate this. The Beraisa cites a Machlokes Tana'im - Rebbi Meir learns 'a'Kulhu', Rebbi Yossi, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon confine it to a Besulah and a Zekeinah.