Culmination of support: R. Shimon said that we may not offer a Yotzei Dofen;

Suggestion: He refers to a Yotzei Dofen of (any) Kodshim.

Rejection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Nasan): No, he refers only to a Yotzei Dofen Bechor.

Rebuttal (of rejection, and defense of suggestion): We know that Yotzei Dofen does not have Kedushas Bechor because it is not "Peter Rechem"!

Counter-question: Likewise, we should not need "Zos" to invalidate Yotzei Dofen of other Kodshim, for we learn from Bechor! (It says "Imo" regarding both of these.)

Answer: Regarding Kodshim, we need two verses. One must teach about a Yotzei Dofen that was made Hekdesh, and one must teach about a Yotzei Dofen born from a Kodesh mother;

(R. Shimon holds that the child of a Korban does not become Hekdesh until it is born. Rashi deletes this from the text, for all the more so, if he held that it becomes Kodesh from conception, we would need a second verse! Tosfos defends the text. The Gemara teaches that even so, a second verse is needed. Since the Pesul of Yotzei Dofen does not precede the Kedushah, rather, it comes at the same time, one might have thought that it is a valid Korban.)

A second verse would not be needed to teach about Bechor. It is always Kodesh from birth, and "Peter Rechem" excludes a Yotzei Dofen!

Support: The Beraisa says that "Zos" excludes Rove'a, Nirva... , even though other verses disqualify them!

"Min ha'Behemah" excludes Rove'a and Nirva. "Min ha'Bakar" excludes a Ne'evad. "Min ha'Tzon" excludes a Muktzeh. "U'Min ha'Tzon" excludes an animal that killed a person.

"Shor" excludes a crossbreed. "Oh Ez" excludes an animal of a different species than its parents.

We must say that these latter verses disqualify a Rove'a, Nirva, Ne'evad,... of Chulin that was Hukdash. "Zos" disqualifies a Korban that was Rove'a, Nirva, Ne'evad...

Likewise, two verses teach about Yotzei Dofen.

(Beraisa): If a woman saw blood amidst Koshi for three days and gave birth Yotzei Dofen, she is a Zavah;

R. Shimon says, she is not a Zavah.

If blood came out from there, it is Tamei (like Dam Nidah);

R. Shimon says, it is Tahor.

Question: We understand the first argument. R. Shimon considers it a birth, therefore the law of Koshi applies. Chachamim do not consider it a birth, so she is a regular Zavah;

However, what is the second argument?

Answer #1 (Ravina): The case is, the child was born Yotzei Dofen. Blood came out from the Rechem;

R. Shimon holds that she is a Yoledes. Dam Zivah amidst Koshi is Tahor (like R. Yitzchak, 36b);

Chachamim hold that she is not a Yoledes. It is regular Dam Zivah.

Objection #1 (Rav Yosef): If so, there was no need for the Beraisa to teach the second argument. It follows from the first!

Objection #2 (Rav Yosef): "If blood came out from there" connotes from the same place that the child left!

Answer #2 (Rav Yosef): The case is, the child and blood both came out from the Dofen (the wall of the womb that was cut). They argue about whether or not Makom Makor Tamei (if the Makor is Metamei any blood that touches it, even if the blood will not leave through the Rechem - Rashi. Ramban - the Torah decreed that blood from the Makor is Tamei, but not because it touched it. Blood is not a Mashkeh (and even if it were, only a Revi'is would be Mekabel Tum'ah), and Beis ha'Starim is not Metamei. Tosfos - the Tum'ah is a tradition handed down to Moshe from Sinai.)

(Reish Lakish): Chachamim are Metamei the blood. They are also Metamei her. (The blood makes her a Nidah, even though it left through the Dofen);

R. Shimon is Metaher the blood. He is Metaher her (Tosfos - if the blood came b'Koshi in Yemei Zivah);

(R. Yochanan): Even Chachamim are Metaher her. (All agree that blood that leaves through the Dofen is not Metamei her);

R. Yochanan followed this reasoning in the following statement:

(R. Yochanan): R. Shimon taught (and Chachamim agree) that a woman does not become a Nidah (or Zavah) unless the blood leaves through her Ervah -- "Ishah Davah... Ervasah."

(Reish Lakish): If a piece of flesh left a woman's Makor, she is Teme'ah -- "Hishafech Nechushtech va'Tigaleh Ervasech." (Something that falls from her bottom is considered to be in its place, i.e. to be Metamei her.)

Question: What Tum'ah does she receive?

Tum'ah of seven days is due only to blood, but not to flesh!

Answer: She has Tum'as Erev. (She is Teme'ah until she immerses. She becomes fully Tehorah at night.)

(R. Yochanan): If two drops of white blood left the Makor, she is Teme'ah.

Question: What Tum'ah does she receive?

Only five colors of blood are Metamei for seven days! (White is not one of them.)

Answer: She has Tum'as Erev (because they came from the Makor);

This is only if two drops left, but if only one left, we attribute it to the walls of the Prozdor.

(Mishnah): A woman becomes Teme'ah when blood (leaves the Makor and) enters the Beis ha'Chitzon.

Question: What is the Beis ha'Chitzon?

Answer #1 (Reish Lakish): It is the place visible when a girl sits. (The Rechem opens a bit.)

Objection (R. Yochanan): That is considered exposed! (If a Sheretz touched her there, it would be Metamei her. It is not Tum'as Beis ha'Starim (a covered place). The Torah would not call it "bi'Vesarah")!

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): It is the place between the "teeth" (protrusions where the Rechem meets the Prozdor).

Question: If blood went between the "teeth," is this like entering the Prozdor, or not?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Zakai): She is not Tamei until blood passes between the teeth. Between the teeth is like inside the Rechem.

Answer #3 (Beraisa): It is the place of Dishah.

Question: What does this mean?

Answer (Rav Yehudah): It is where the Ever rubs against the walls of the Prozdor.

(Beraisa #1): "Bi'Vesarah" teaches that she is Teme'ah even though the blood is still inside her.

Question: This verse discusses Nidah. What is the source regarding a Zavah?

Answer: It says "Zavah bi'Vesarah." (Even though this is in the Parshah of Nidah, this word alludes to Zivah.)

Question: What is the source regarding a woman who discharges (a man's) semen (that had entered her Makor, and it goes to the Beis ha'Chitzon)?

Answer: We learn from "Yihyeh."

R. Shimon says, semen is not Metamei her more than it is Metamei a man;

Semen is not Metamei a man until it leaves his body. Likewise, it is not Metamei her until it leaves her.

Question: Elsewhere, R. Shimon holds that semen is Metamei a woman more than it is Metamei a man!

(Beraisa #2 - R. Shimon) Question: What do we learn from "(if a man has Bi'ah with a woman... ) v'Rachatzu va'Mayim v'Tam'u Ad ha'Arev"?

It need not teach that semen is Metamei what it touches. We know this from "Oh Ish"!

Answer: Without this verse, the semen would not be Metamei her, for it touches her internally. It is Tum'as Beis ha'Starim;

The Torah decrees that she becomes Teme'ah anyway.

Answer: R. Shimon expounds that semen during Bi'ah is Metamei her, even though it is Tum'as Beis ha'Starim, but semen that she discharges is not Metamei her (in Beis ha'Chitzon, rather,) until it leaves her.

Question: Why does R. Shimon (in Beraisa #1) say that the discharge of semen is Metamei her? Even without this, she is Teme'ah due to Bi'ah!

Answer: The case is, she immersed after Bi'ah. The discharge of semen is Metamei her again.

Inference: (Tevilah helps until she discharges semen, i.e.) after Tevilah she has only Tum'as Erev. (At night she is Tehorah.)

Question: Rava forbids a woman to eat Terumah for three days after Bi'ah, for surely she will discharge semen! (After three days, semen putrefies and loses its Tum'ah.)

Answer #1: The Beraisa discusses a woman who was carried to the Mikveh on her bed. (She was horizontal the entire time, so we are not concerned for a discharge of semen.)

Objection: This implies that Rava discusses a woman who walked to the Mikveh. We should assume that this caused all the semen to leave!

Suggestion: Perhaps we are concerned that some semen remained.

Rejection: If so, Rava should have said "perhaps semen remained (and she will discharge it)"!