Is the 10th like the 11th?

R' Yochana and Reish Lakish have a machlokes in Nidda on daf 72b if the 10th day of the ziva cycle has the same halacha as the 9th day or as the 11th day. Reish Lakish maintains that the 10th day is like the 11th day. Rashi explains that the machlokes is about whether she requires shimur for that day.

The Aruch Laner asks why, according to R"L, didn't our Mishna (on 71b-72a) set up the machlokes as talking about the 10th instead of the 11th. He suggests maybe it's really a kula so it's koach d'hetera adif but he doesn't like that answer because it just as easily could have said that the machlokes is about the 10th and 11th. From the words of the Mishna, it definitely implies that the machlokes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai is specific to the 11th and not the 10th. According to Reish Lakish though the 10th has the same din as the 11th? The Aruch Laner doesn't answer the question.

I'm not sure if his premise is really correct. Maybe Reish Lakish doesn't mean to equate the 10th to the 11th completely with regard to all the gezeiros d'rabonon. He only means that m'doraysa she doesn't require a clean day if she sees on the 10th but that doesn't mean that the gezeiors d'rabonon are the same. Beis Shamai says in the Mishna that if the woman saw dam on the 11th day and then went to the mikva on the 12th during the day we are gozeir on the 12th because had the same thing happened during the 11 days it would have been tamei. However Beis Hillel says that we are not gozeir tuma in that case. The gemara explains that there is no need to be gozeir in that case because everyone knows that the 12th day is yemei nida so they won't confuse it. What happens if the reiya had been on the 10th day and not the 11th? I think that in that case Beis Hillel would be modeh with Beis Shamai that there is tuma d'rabanon. There the woman could get confused between the 11th and the previous days because she's not yet in yemei nida. Therefore, the Mishna could only discuss the 11th and not the 10th in the seifa so it did so in the reisha also. That would answer the Aruch Laner's question.

No tevila needed at the end

The mishna in Nidda on 71b quotes a machlokes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai if a yoledes has to go to the mikva again after her yemei tahara. She definitely goes to the mikva after her yemei tuma and the gemara explains that she then has the din of a "tevul yom aruch" since she needs to wait for "heerev shemes" (of a few weeks later) before she can eat kodshim. Rashi explains what their machlokes is about. She's definitely not tamei with regard to chullin so for that there is no purpose in going to the mikva. Rashi says that the chiluk is for a kohen to eat truma (The Aruch Laner points out that it would be the same chiluk for a Yisrael to touch the teruma). Rashi says that the for the nafka mina for a yisrael would be going into the beis hamikdash - Beis Hillel would say that no tevila is necessary. However, Rashi points out that they both agreed to eat kodshim the woman would definitely need to go to the mikva.

The Aruch Laner quotes Rishonim who ask on Rashi why should there be a chiluk between eating kodshim and bias hamikdash. We never see such a chiluk. If she needs tevila to eat kodshim the she should need to go into the mikdash. He explains that when Rashi says that the machlokes is about going into the mikdash he only means with regard to going into the ezras nashim. The Ezras Nashim does have some kedusha so Rashi is explaining that this is the machlokes Rishonim. The Aruch Laner points out that this must be what Rashi meant since a woman can't go into the Ezras Yisrael. It's just not what is normally meant when it says "bias mikdash," but it does make sense so that must be pshat in Rashi.

Is a hefsek tahara required for a zav/zava?

In nida on 69a, Rav said that a zav or zava doesn't really need a bedika on the first day and on the seventh day but one or the other is enough. He says techilasan af al gav she'ein sofan and sofan af al gav she'ein techilasan. However, when he says those halachos he actually says it about two specific cases. One case is that the bedika was done on the first and eighth day and Rav says that is ok even though there is no end. The Rishonim (including Rashi) point out that Rav's halacha is true even without the bedika on the eighth day. All you need is a bedika on the first day and that is enough. Why then did the gemara set up the case where there was a bedika on the eighth day? Just to show that even in that case R' Chanina argues.

The gemara then talks about a woman who did a hefsek on the last day of her ziva bleeding. She then did not do a bedika on the first day of her 7 nekiim and did a bedika only on the last day. In that case Rav says that's ok as long as you did the bedika on the seventh then you don't need a bedika in the beginning. Tosafos explains that according to Rav that bedika on the last day of bleeding is necessary. Just a bedika at the end with nothing at the beginning or before the beginning is nothing. You need the hefsek tahara and the only question is if you also need a bedika on the first clean day. To that Rav says it's not necessary.

I have a number of problems with this explanation (although I didn't see anyone who argues with Tosafos and I think it has to be true).
1. The two statements of Rav really mean different things. When he says techilasan af al gav she'ein sofan, he means that you don't need any bedika at the end at all (even after the end) but when he says sofan af al gav she'ein techilasan he really means that you don't need one at the beginning but you need one before the beginning. (This question doesn't bother me that much but it's just strange that the two statements aren't parallel.)
2. The gemara explains that Rav had to make both statements because if there was no bedika at the beginning is a much bigger chidush than if there was no bedika at the end. The gemara says that is because even if there is no bedika at the end at least there is the chezkas tahara because of the bedika at the beginning but if there is no bedika in the beginning then there is no chazaka. According to Tosafos though there was a bedika before the beginning - the hefsek tahara! So why is that any worse and why is this a bigger chidush??
3. Tosafos Harash asks if the hefsek is required then what was the gemara's question on Rav from the braisa. The gemara tried to prove that Rav was wrong because when the confused woman doesn't know if she was a yoledes b'zov we tell her that in the first week she doesn't need to go to the mikva during the day because she first needs to count 7 nekiim. This shouldn't have been a question because maybe she didn't even do the hefsek so that's why even according to Rav you need a bedika at the beginning.
Tosafos Harash answers this question that it could be that the hefsek is only d'rabanon but tevila b'zmana would override that. Therefore even if she didn't do a hefsek, according to Rav we would still require her to go to the mikva right away. He also suggests another answer that maybe she did a hefsek but she just doesn't remember.

Hefsek during yemei nida

The Mishna in Nida on daf 68a quotes a machlokes when the last bedika that shows she's tehora during yemei nida can be in order for it to work. (This isn't halacha l'maase because it's talking about where a nida just counts 7 days and not like we do where all dam is considered ziva.) Rashi understands the Mishna as a three way machlokes and then the gemara on 68b quotes a fourth opinion:
T"k - bedika must be on the seventh day
R' Yehuda - Bedika must be after mincha ketana on the seventh day
Chachamim - Bedika can be as early the second day
Rebbe (on amud beis) - bedika could even be on the first day

Tosafos Harash doesn't like this explanation because it's hard to understand the explanation for the t"k and for the chachamim. He therefore says that the Chachamim are just explaining the t"k. The t"k didn't mean that the bedika had to be in the morning of the seventh day but he was just emphasizing that it didn't have to be at the last minute. Any time she stops bleeding she can do the bedika and the Chachamim really agree with Rebbe that it could even be on hte first day. So why did they say the second day? Tosafos Harash explains that it's just more common. Normally she wouldn't do the bedika on the first day so the chachamim just use that example.

According to Rashi R' Yehuda makes sense. He says that she can't be in chezkas tehara unless she knows that at the end of her yemei nida she wasn't bleeding. Until then she's in chezkas nida. Rebbe makes sense because he says that she just has to prove that she stopped bleeding and then she can assume that no more dam came out otherwise she would have seen or felt it. What is the explanation of the Chachamim and Tana Kama though? I guess that you could understand the Chachamim like the gemara on amud beis understood Rebbe's hava amina. Since it's a mayan pasuach on the first day she can't do a bedika on that day. If that's true though is that a din only on the first day or would the same thing apply on the second day if she bled in the morning then she can't do the bedika in the afternoon? If it's true on the second day would it also be true on the seventh day? I'm almost positive that it wouldn't be true. So why not? The Tana Kama is even harder to understand. I'm guessing that really the t"k agrees with R' Yehuda that the bedika has to be at the end of the yemei nida. Just like R' Yehuda doesn't require her to check straight through bein hashemashos but allows it to be a few hours earlier the t"k says that it can be a few hours earlier than that. Not a great sevara but I can't think of anything better.

Four days between chafifa and tevila

The gemara in nida on 67b says has a machlokes if we allow the woman to do the chafifa two days before the tevila, three days and four days. According to one opinion we allow her to do it because there are times that we require her to do the chafifa that many days in advance. Two days when the tevila is Motzei Shabbos, three days when Motzei Yom Tov is Sunday and four days when Rosh Hashana is Sunday/Monday.

The Maharsha asks why the gemara limits it to the case of Rosh Hashana and why it didn't just continue talking about Yom Tov. Afterall, these were Amoraim living in Bavel having this discussion. He says that the Shach answers the questions. I looked in the Aruch Laner and he also asks another question: Rosh Hashana can't fall out on Sunday - "Lo Ad"u Rosh" so why does the gemara use this example? He quotes the Shach to answer both questions. The Amoraim wanted to show that included in the original takana of Ezra was the allowance to do the chafifa so far in advance. Just because nowadays it's possible for two days of yom tov to follow Shabbos, if it wasn't possible in the times of Ezra then that wouldn't prove that the chafifa could be done in those situations so far in advance. That's also why Rosh Hashana could be on Sunday. Even in the days of Ezra they were careful that Rosh Hashana wouldn't fall out on Wednesday or Friday so Yom Kippur shouldn't be back to back with Shabbos but they were not careful that it shouldn't fall out on Sunday. It wasn't a huge deal if Hoshana Rabba fell out on Shabbos. Even though nowadays it can't happen because we'd prefer if Hoshana Rabba didn't happen on Shabbos it wasn't impossible back then.

Marrying off a ketana

The Gemara in Nida on 66a tells a story of Ravina who married off his son to a girl from the house of R' Chanina. The story says that R' Chanina thought that in this instance they didn't have to wait 7 days from the time of the agreement to marry because she was a ketana. Ravina corrected him and told him that even for a ketana you must wait 7 days.

Ravina was at the end of the Amoraic period so why were they still marrying off ketanos. The gemara in Kiddushin on 41a says that R' Yehuda said in the name of Rav that people should no longer marry off their ketana daughters. Tosafos there says that ruling no longer applied in his days because of the problem of marrying off girls but was it already ignored in the days of the later Amoraim?

UPDATE (2/23): I saw this morning that the Aruch Laner asks this questions and says to look at what he wrote in Yevamos but I couldn't find it.

Kesem or tzeva?

The Mishna in nida 62a says that if you wash a garment with a stain with the 7 special cleansing agents and it doesn't come out then you can assume it's a tzeva and therefore the teharos remain tehoros. Tosafos quotes Rashi in Sandhedrin on daf 49b who says that it's a vadai tzeva. Because these cleansing agents didn't take the stain out we know for sure that it can't be blood. Rashi in our gemara is mashma like that also in a couple of Rashis (one in the Mishna and one on the top of amud beis). However, we were bothered this morning by one Rashi on amud beis (d"h taharosav tehoros) which sounds like he is learning like Tosafos. I saw now that the Yosef Daas gemara points that out also. Rashi says that even though you did the test it still might be dam. I was thinking (and it actually could be R' Tendler said this morning but I'm not positive if this is what he meant) that it could be that the Rashi there is going in shitas R' Chiya. R' Chiya holds that even though you know for sure it is dam then it is still tahor if you do the test and it doesn't come out. According to that you can't say that it's definitely not dam because we know it is dam. However the other Rashis are all talking about a kesem like our Mishna is talking about. Rashi's saying that in those shitos the 7 cleansing agents would almost definitely take it out so therefore if it doesn't you can be certain that it's not blood.

Tosafos asks a series of questions on Rashi and doesn't like his pshat (the Rashash tries to answer some of them). Tosafos says that when the Mishna says that it's a tzeva if it doesn't come out with the cleansing agents, it doens't mean that it's definitely a tzeva - it just means that it's likely or it might be a tzeva and therefore we can be meikil.

There are a number of nafka mina between their shitos but one major one is discussed by the Rishonim. In the case of the Mishna where we said that it is presumed tahor because it didn't come out with the cleansing agents, is she muteres to her husband also? The Rambam paskens that she is because this test proves that this isn't dam. So even though there is nothing to be tole this big stain on we still assume it's not dam because it didn't come out. It sounds like he's learning our gemara like Rashi. The Raavad others vehemently disagree and say that she is temeia. One raaya they bring is from our Mishna. The case was if you took the garment to the mikva and then you did the test then we say that we can consider it tahor. It implies that if you didn't take it to the mikva then even the garment would be tamei even if the cleansing agents couldn't get it off. So you see that the cleansing agents don't prove that it wasn't dam. Just that together with the fact that you took it to the mikva you can assume that it's already batel and therefore won't be metamei anymore.

For more on this topic look at the nosei keilim on the Rambam in hilchus isurei bia (9:38). Also the Ritva and Ran and Aruch Laner (and I'm sure many others) discuss the various shitos in the gemara.

Og and Sichon

The gemara in nida on daf 61a quotes the pasuk that Hashem had to tell Moshe not to be afraid of Og. The gemara asks why Moshe was only afraid of Og and not of Sichon if they were brothers and it answers because Og had the zchus of having told Avraham about Lot. We know that it was him because the pasuk says that "the one who was saved" told Avraham so it must have been someone who was saved from the mabul and that was Og.

Rashi says that Og was saved by going to Eretz Yisrael where there was no mabul. That's a machlokes between Reish Lakish and R' Yochanan. Tosafos points out that according to the other pshat the Midrash says that Og survived by hanging onto the side of teiva. Tosafos though asks if Sichon and Og were brothers then if Og was saved then Sichon must have been saved also so how do we know that the "one who was saved" is referring to Og and not Sichon. Tosafos answers that we know it from the fact that Moshe was only afraid of Og so it must have been that it was he who told Avraham. The Maharsha says that there's a midrash that says that only Og was saved without being in the Teiva. Sichon wasn't born before the mabul but he was still Sichon's brother because their father was mezane with Cham's wife and she was pregnant when the mabul started and Sichon was actually born on the teiva. The Aruch Laner says that it can't be that they were mezane because then Cham's wife was no better than all the people who were killed in the mabul so why was she saved? He explains that it must be that Cham's wife had actually been married to Og and Sichon's father and then he died (or they got divorced) while she was pregnant. Then she married Cham and then they went on the teiva and Sichon was born on the teiva.

One more thing still bothered me. What was the gemara's question in the first place? It seems like the gemara is asking that Moshe should have been just as afraid of Sichon since he was Og's brother. And therefore what? It seems that it's saying they must have been equally strong. Is that true? All brothers are equally strong? That seems very strange. Also, why all of a sudden is Moshe afraid of strong people? He'd defeated some of the strongest nations and there have been numerous miracles and now he was afraid? I was glad to see that the Aruch Laner also had a couple other questions and therefore offers another pshat. Moshe never feared Og because he was strong. He feared him because he was so old. How could he have survived since the days of Noach if not for the fact that he had zchusim! The gemara then asks but Sichon was his brother and close to the same age so why wasn't Moshe afraid of him. The gemara answers that Og had the extra zchus of having told Avraham about Lot.

Who left the stain?

The Gemara in nida on daf 60b explains the Mishna that if two women were lying on a bed and they get up and there is a kesem on the bed (bigger than a gris) then one can't assume that it came from the other and they are both temeios. However if one of them is nursing and one isn't then the nursing woman can assume that it came from the non-nursing woman and only the latter is temeia. Same thing if one is pregnant and one isn't or if one is old (post-menopausal) and one isn't or one is a young girl and one isn't. The gemara concludes that if they're both pregnant or both nursing or both old or both young then there's no reason to assume it came from one over the other so they're both temeios.

The gemara does not talk about a case where one was pregnant and one was nursing or any of the two women in different categories. What would the halacha be in that case? For example, if one woman was 80 years old and the other is nursing can the 80 year old assume it came from the nursing woman? It's true that it was unlikely for either of them to see dam but now that there is dam isn't it much more likely that it came from the nursing woman than from the 80 year old? How much more likely does it need to be to blame it on one woman over the other?

Tosafos on the bottom of 60b doesn't address my specific question but he does address two other similar questions. If one woman is close to shaas vesta and the other woman is not can we assume that it came from the woman who was close to shaas vesta? What about if one woman didn't have a regular cycle and the other woman did (and it wasn't that time of month) can we assume it came from the woman without the regular cycle? Tosafos says that in both those cases you can't blame it on one over the other.

I'm not sure if I'd extend Tosafos to our case. I guess it really depends how much more likely it is that it came from one woman over the other. In the case of the gemara it's about 90% likely so we assume it came from that one. Tosafos' case is like 65% (I'm just making up the numbers to illustrate the point) likely so we don't assume in that case. What about in my case which is probably somewhere in between? Or maybe it doesn't matter how likely it is but only in these cases where one has a reason to assume that it didn't come from her but the other doesn't have that same reason will we say it. If however they both have a reason to assume it didn't come from them even if one has a much better reason then we cannot assume it came from the other. I looked at some of the Rishonim and didn't see anyone address this.

meikil by kesamim

The Mishna in nidda 58b says that a woman came to R' Akiva and asked about a kesem. He found a way to say that it came from something else and paskened l'kula. The students couldn't believe it. He said that the rabbanon only said kesamim l'kula and he quoted a pasuk to show that kesamim aren't tamei m'doraysa. The gemara on 59a asks but it's not true that the Rabonon only said kesamim l'kula. Really, kesamim should be tahor and the rabonon were machmir. The gemara said that's true - kesamim were really a chumra but it's only d'rabonon and we're meikil. The way some want to learn this gemara is that the gemara is answering that kesamim is like any other din d'rabanon that we're meikil.

A few things bothered me about this:
1. What did the students think? Did they think that kesamim were d'oraysa? Did they think that even though they're d'rabonon we're still machmir? I don't know why they'd think either of those things. (The Tosafos Yom Tov answers this question)
2. Why does R' Akiva say that the Rabonon only said kesamim l'kula. Are we changing the girsa of the Mishna? If so then what is R' Akiva's point? Just that it's a din d'rabonon? So why say "lo amru ..."
3. The Rashash points out that there is a very similar gemara in eiruvin on daf 59 (coincidentally) that has the same line about techumin. The Rashash says that the editors just "forgot" to reference that gemara here and our gemara there. Is that really likely? There are thousands and thousands of references and here it's the exact same words and they just forget to reference the other gemara in both places!?!

I think that you could answer the questions that we're not changing the girsa of the Mishna. R' Akiva meant what he said that we're meikil by kesamim. The students knew that kesamim was just a chumra d'rabonon and they knew that we should meikil by kesamim. The thing that they couldn't believe was how far R' Akiva took that. This wasn't a classic safeik. The woman came and said that she had a kesem. R' Akiva went out of his way to try find some other way that it might have been possible that the kesem came from another source. Therefore he responded that the rabonon were meikil by kesamim - even more than by normal d'rabonons. That's why this line is different from the line in Eiruvin. There the gemara only meant to say that techumin are d'rabonon and therefore we're meikil by a safeik but no more meikil than by normal d'rabonons. Here the gemara is saying much more than that. We're more meikil by kesamim than by normal d'rabonons so even if there's even just a remote chance that the kesem came from some other source we're rely on that. I'm pretty sure that this is pshat (and you may have understood it this way from the beginning) but it's not clear from the gemara.

Kesamim d'rabonnon

Shmuel said in nidda 57b that if a woman sat on the ground then she is tehora and he quotes a pasuk that proves that a woman is not temeia if she doesn't have a hargasha. The gemara quotes many proofs to show that kesamim are tamei so Shmuel can't dispute that. R' Yirmiya M'difti says that Shmuel only meant that she's n0t temeia d'oraysa but kesamim are tamei m'drabonon. Rav Ashi says (on 58a) that Shmuel holds in this case that she's not temeia because the kesem was found on the ground which isn't mekabel tuma.

Tosafos understands that Rav Ashi isn't arguing with R' Yirmiya M'Difti that according to Shmuel kesamim are d'rabonon. He's just extending it - the only time she's temeia d'oraysa is if she had a hargasha but kesamim aren't even tamei m'drabonon unless it's on a davar shemikabel tuma. Tosafos explains the reason is since the place where you found it can't become tamei from the dam so they weren't gozeir tuma on the woman either.

Rashi explains Rav Ashi that he's saying that Shmuel wasn't saying anything about hargasha at all. It's still clear from Rashi though that Rav Ashi agrees that according to Shmuel kesmaim are only d'rabonon. I'm not sure if there is a machlokes at all between Rashi and Tosafos but the Acharonim (the Aruch Laner deals with this in depth) try to figure out how Rashi can say that it has nothing to with hargasha when Shmuel followed his statement by quoting a pasuk to prove that the woman is only temeia if she had a hargasha.

Tarti shma mina

The gemara in nida 57b says there are three drashos that we need to learn from "bivsara": 1. that she's temeia even before the dam actually comes out 2. that if the blood comes out inside of something else she's not temeia and 3. she's not temeia if she didn't have a hargasha. The gemara says that one drasha is from basar, another is from bivsara and "tarti shma mina." There are two ways to understand that line. One is that the first two drashos could be made from one extra thing because they're both teaching that she's temeia when it touches her flesh - that could be a chumra (she's temeia before it actually comes out) or a kula (she's not temeia if it comes out inside of something else). Then we're left with another drasha to teach that she must have a hargasha. Others (Ran) learn that there are actually three drashos - the beis at the beginning, the hay at the end and the word itself. It doesn't sound like it from our gemara which says that it could have said b'basar but the bivsara is extra implying that the beis at the beginning is not extra. However, someone pointed out this morning at the daf that there are different girsaos on daf 21 about what is extra so it is definitely possible to learn that there are three extra things here.

Kohen Kusi

The gemara explains the mishna on 56b that we believe a kohen with regard to where a grave is only if it's a Kohen kusi eating truma there. How could there be Kohen Kusi if the kusim were geirim? I think that the simple answer is that the Kusim started off as geirim but like any group/cult there are always converts later who think that their way makes sense. So it's possible that there were some Kusi Kohanim. The Artscroll though quotes a Tosafos Yom Tov who explains this historically:

The Gemara here refers to the descendants of the Kohen brought by the Assyrian king to teach the Cutheans "the law of the god of the Land' (see II Kings 17:27). Apparently, the unfortunate results of this was that his descendants ultimately adapted the ways of the Cutheans.

Shema yaase adam oros aviv v'imo shtichin lachamor

The gemara on 55a says that a dead person's skin is only tamei m'drabonnon and the reason they made it tamei was so that a person shouldn't make his parents' skin into shtichin lachamor. Rashi says that means a donkey's saddle.

Tosafos asks that it's asur b'hanaa so why the need for the gezeira? They have two answers. One is that skin isn't really asur b'hanaa. The other answer is that people are more likely to not do something because they don't want to be tamei than they are even if there is an isur d'oraysa of hanaa!

The Ritva is still bothered by two questions.
1. Who would use their dead parents' skin as a saddle?!?
2. Why does the gemara use the example of the parents' skin?

Tosafos in chullin 122a answers the second question by saying that it just uses the most likely example. It's unlikely that he'd be able to get someone else's skin to use so the only skin he has readily available is his parents'.

The Ritva though says that we're not talking about a saddle at all. We're talking about a decorative piece. Some people will honor their parents by placing their skin onthe living room wall. Therefore the Rabbonon felt the need to make the gezeira. The Ritva's pshat is nice except for one problem - the gemara says shtichin lachamor. The footnote on the bottom of the Mossad Harav Kook edition says that the Ritva and other Rishonim didn't have that girsa. It is true that the same gemara is in chullin 122a and the word chamor is left out there.

14 or 15 out of 48?

The gemara on Nida 54A going onto 54B quotes a braisa that says that a woman who has an 16 day cycle (she sees dam for 8 days then goes 8 days without seeing) will be able to have tashmish with her husband for 15 out of 48 days. First I'll explain how the gemara came up with that number:

There are 6 8 day sets. She sees through the first, third and fifth sets and doesn't see during the second, fourth and sixth. The first set encompasses her 7 day nida period and 1 day of ziva. She then needs a day of shomeres yom for the zava ketana. Then she's muteres to her husband for the rest of set 2 (7 days). When she starts seeing dam again on day 17, she's still in her yemei ziva for two days so she's a shomeres yom. The last 6 days of her third set are during her yemei nida so she's a nida plus she needs one day of her fourth set to complete her yemei nida. That leaves 7 days of her fourth set that she is tehora. Then her fifth set starts during her yemei ziva but this time 4 days are during her yemei ziva so she's a zava gedola which means that she needs 7 clean days before she can become tehora and that leaves only the last day of her sixth set when she is tehora.

The gemara then asks that it should be 14 and not 15. Rashi understands this question one way and all the other Rishonim disagree. First let's understand Rashi's pshat:
The question is only based on the last set. We said that she can start counting her 7 clean days right when the bleeding stops so she'll be tehora on day 48. The problem is that she's in the middle of her yemei nida at that point. She started cycle 5 on the eighth day of her yemei ziva which means that the last four days of bleeding are when she should have been in her yemei nida. That leaves three more days during her sixth set that she's still in her yemei nida so she can't even begin to count which means that she won't be tehora on day 48. So there are only 14 days when she's tehora. The gemara then answers that if you don't see dam during the yemei nida that you could count it as clean days.

This Rashi is extremely difficult to understand. The Rishonim jump all over Rashi because his explanation really goes against everything we have learned. We know that there is always a 7-11 cycle. The first 7 days are yemei nida and the next 11 are yemei ziva (I'm not getting into the Rambam's pshat at all here although this gemara is really a key to understanding his explanation of the cycle.) That's for a normal woman. However, we also know that if a woman sees dam on days 9,10,11 of her yemei ziva (days 16,17,18 overall) that she's a zava gedola. She then must count 7 clean days before she is tehora. Until she counts her 7 clean days she can never become a nida. So in this case, if she saw dam again on day 22, she is not a nida because she still hasn't had 7 clean days since she first saw dam. Even though this is after the 11 so she should be in yemei nida she can't actually become a nida yet. Those are facts that even Rashi agrees to. However, he says that while that's true, the makshan in our gemara held that those days still count as yemei nida inasmuch as she can't start counting her clean days during that time. That's still hard for me to understand.

Tosafos seems willing to accept that but has two serious problems with Rashi:
1. Why are we only bringing up this problem on the 16 day cycle. We should have asked this on the 14 day cycle. The braisa said that she's tehora for a quarter of her days. According to Rashi though that's not true. Her third set of 7 days include 4 of yemei ziva and 3 of yemei nida. So she can't start counting her 7 clean days at the beginning of her fourth set. She must first wait until she's out of her yemei nida. That won't happen until day 5 of the fourth set so that means that she won't be starting anew on day 29. So while it's true that she'll be tehora for 7 out of the first 28 days, it doesn't go on forever. After that she's going to be temeia for a very long time.
2. It sounds from the gemara like it would have been ok had the braisa said 14 out of every 48 instead of 15 but that's not true. It wouldn't be able to start over on day 49 because she first has to finish counting her 7 clean days which could only start after her yemei nida were over. It comes out that she won't be tehora again until day 63.

Apparently Rashi isn't bothered by these questions because he doesn't learn the braisa to mean that she'll be tehora for 14 or 15 out of every 48. Just 14 or 15 out of the first 48. Same thing with the previous case. She's tehora for one quarter of the first 28 days but not a quarter of her days forever. That doesn't seem like pashut pshat in the braisa.

The Aruch Laner answers the first question of Tosafos. He says that Rashi only holds that it's called yemei nida even though she's still in her yemei ziva if she's already passed 30 days since her last cycle started.

Tosafos argues with Rashi and says that the gemara's question is from back on the fourth set. The problem is that she's a zava ketana because the first two days of her third set were during her yemei ziva. Then we say that she keeps just the first day of her fourth set as the shomeres yom and she is tehora on day two of the fourth set. That first day is also the seventh day of her yemei nida so the gemara is asking how could that count as a clean day for yemei ziva. The gemara answers that a clean day during yemei nida could count as the shomeres yom for a zava ketana.

To me, this pshat fits in perfectly in the gemara and makes a lot of sense.

Nida Daf 53

Wow, that was a hard daf. That's the good/bad thing about daf yomi - no matter how hard the daf is you can never spend more than a day on it otherwise you fall behind. I don't really have much to add on this daf as it took me a long time to even try to understand the pashut pshat and I'm still not sure that I understand the entire daf (particularly amud alef) very well. Artscroll (as usual) did a wonderful job explaining the gemara with Rashi's pshat including pointing out the major problems that the other Rishonim had with Rashi.

Just one quick point which Rashi didn't make but is clear from the rest of the gemara and many of the Rishonim point it out. When R' Shimon Ben Elazar argues with the Tana Kama and says "atzma aina metama," he is not saying that she's not temeia l'maphreia at all (which is how I read the braisa at first) but he is just saying that you don't go all the way back to the last time that she washed the garment. She's only temeia for 24 hours just like she would have been had it been a reiya.

Until when can a girl do miun?

The mishna/gemara in nidda 52a quotes a three way machlokes about the last time that a girl can do miun. First a definition of miun since the gemara didn't give it: A father can marry off his daughter one time m'doraysa. If he's dead then the Rabbonon gave the mother and brothers that power but they gave the girl an out. She can annul the marriage up to a certain point that we discussed in our gemara. Also, if the father already married her off then she was widowed she's called a yesoma b'chayei aviha and he can no longer marry her off m'doraysa. It's the same as if her father was dead and her mother married her off. Now the machlokes about the last time that she is allowed to do miun.

1. The Tana Kama (Rashi refers to this as shitas R' Meir so I will too) - two searos
2. R' Yehuda according to pashut pshat in the mishna and how some in the gemara understand him- ad sheyirbu hashschor (regardless if she had bia before that or not)
3. R' Yehuda according to R' Abahu - once she has bia after two searos or ad sheyirbu hashachor

The thing that is not clear from the gemara is what happens at these three different stages that prevents her from doing miun. That's what I'll attempt to clarify here although I'm sure that there are other opinions that I'm not mentioning.

1. Rashi says that according to R' Meir when she has two searos the kiddushin d'rabonnon that took place when she was a ketana automatically takes effect without anything else happening when she's a gedola. It sounds from Rashi like this is kiddushin d'oraysa. Indeed, that's the way that the Aruch Laner understands it. He also quotes Tosafos in Yevamos on daf 109a (d"h v'hu) who argues and says that R' Meir believes that m'doraysa a kinyan kiddushin needs to be made once she's a gedola just that the Rabbonon made a takana that she shouldn't be able to do miun anymore.

2. I think that according to this opinion it's clear that the whole thing is only m'drabbonon. Even though she had bia and she's a gedola she can still back out. The Ritva explains that this is because we assume that the bia that she did when she was a gedola was only al daas kiddushin rishonim which wasn't a kiddushin d'oraysa so this isn't either. I think that even m'sheyirbu hashachor it still isn't kiddushin d'oraysa. I don't see any reason that anything should change at that point. I think just that R' Yehuda believes at that point the Rabbonon made a takkana that it's too late to do miun. According to this opinion then the only time it's kiddushin d'oraysa is when the man makes a kinyan kiddushin after she has 2 searos with both of them having the intention of doing a new kiddushin and not just a continuation of the old one.

3. Accoring to this opinion, R' Yehuda holds that once yirbu hashachor then it's too late because the Rabbonon made a takana. What about once she has bia after 2 searos. The Ritva says that R' Yehuda holds that we are choshesh that she meant for the bia to be kiddushin and that would effect a kiddushin d'oraysa. Therefore we can no longer allow her to do miun. It sounds like there isn't any major machlokes between the two ways of understanding R' Yehuda. Both opinions believe that there must be a new kinyan with the intention of effecting a new kiddushin but the only question is if we are choshesh that was their intention.

There's actually a lot more on this topic but I really need to work so I'll have to leave it at that. One interesting topic that I didn't have a chance to really look at is if a girl who doesn't have simanim (we checked and we can see that she doesn't have) can do miun once she's 12 years old. I would have assumed that she definitely could but the Hagaos Maymoniis in hilchos geirushin 11:4 says that's not necessarily true. You can take a look there for more on that issue.

If it has scales does it necessarily have fins?

The Kollel Iyun Hadaf in the insights of the day on Chullin 66 said:

The Mishnah says that in order for a fish to be Kosher, it must have both fins and scales (as the Torah teaches in Vayikra 11:9). The Gemara quotes a Mishnah in Nidah (51b) that states that any fish that has scales also has fins, but some fish have fins and do not have scales. TOSFOS (DH Kol) explains that this is either a tradition that goes back to Adam ha'Rishon, or it is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai. Accordingly, the SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 83:3) rules that if we find a piece of fish that has scales on it, we may assume with certainty that it came from a Kosher fish and it may be eaten.

The Gemara asks that if we need to know only that a fish has scales in order to determine that it is Kosher, then the Torah should write only that a fish needs to have scales in order to be Kosher. The Gemara first suggests that the Torah writes "Senapir" in addition to "Kaskeses" in order to clarify to us what the word "Kaskeses" means. The Gemara rejects this suggestion, though, because we already know that "Kaskeses" means "scales" from a different verse, "v'Shiryon Kaskasim Hu Lovesh" -- "And he was wearing armor of scales" (Shmuel I 17:5).

The Ritva on our gemara (nidda 51b) though might understand it differently in his second pshat. He says that the Torah said fins to tell you that is one of the simanim that makes a fish kosher. The Mosad Harav Kook has two explanations of this pshat in the Ritva. One is that it's telling you that there might be a fish out there that does have scales without fins and that fish is not Kosher. The problem with that pshat is then what did the gemara mean when it says that the only reason both are listed is because of yagdil Torah v'yaadir? It's much more than that? The other pshat is that Tosafos is right that it cannot happen. No such creature exists that has scales but no fins. The Torah lists both because it's teaching you that the simanim are what make the fish kosher. It's not just a siman like you can tell it's kosher because it has these simanim. If that was it then the Torah wouldn't have bothered because just one of them is a siman. The point is that the Torah is telling you that it's more than a siman. It is what makes the fish kosher.

aina yoredes l'kach

The Rabbonon on nidda 50b respond to R' Yochanan ben Nuri that there's a big difference between neveilas of tahor (tuma chamura) and tumas ochlin (tuma kala) that "Lo im amarta b'tuma chamura sheken aino yoredes l'kach." When the gemara first quotes this line of the Rabonon, Rashi explains that to mean that there is no tuma chamura which requires machshava whereas there is tuma kalla that requires machshava. Then he says that the gemara will explain. The problem is that the gemara never explains that. The gemara on 51a attempts to give one explanation that it means "aino oseh k'yotze bo." The gemara doesn't like that so it answers that it's "aina tzricha hechsher." The gemara questions if that is indeed true and concludes "shum tuma chamura baolam." Rashi explains this to mean that we're sticking with our second answer but we're just saying that never does a tuma chamura need hechsher whereas often ochlin does require hechsher. If that's pshat in the gemara then why did Rashi first explain it as referring to machshava? The gemara never even entertained the possibility.

Tosafos d"h shum on 51a asks why the gemara didn't answer that. The question is a good question on its own but with Rashi it's really a pele. The Aruch Laner points out that you could have understood the gemara's final answer of "shum tuma chamura baolam" as talking about machshava and not hechsher so it's a third distinct answer and not just qualifying the second answer. That would answer Tosafos' question but the problem is that Rashi (d"h shum) clearly doesn't learn like that. He says that we're talking about hechsher and not machshava.

Tosafos d"h shum in nidda 51a asks

suma kasher ladun?

The gemara in nidda 49b-50a assumes that a person who is blind in both his eyes is not allowed to testify (Tosafos Harosh points out that this is even if he's testifying on something he saw before he became blind). The gemara then says that it's a machlokes tannaim about whether a suma can judge. The gemara says clearly that according to R' Meir a person who is blind in one eye can testify but cannot judge. The gemara says that the Chachamim argue and hold that a blind person can judge. I think that the simple reading of the gemara is that the machlokes is about someone who is blind in one eye but if he's blind in two eyes then everyone would agree that he can neither judge nor testify. However, I was surprised that Tosafos says that the Chachamim hold that someone who is blind in both eyes could judge but cannot testify. So it's a machlokes mikatze lakatze.

UPDATE (3:30 PM) I just looked up the Rambam and he argues with Tosafos. He paskens that someone who is blind in one eye can judge but not someone who is blind in both eyes. Hagaos Maymoniis asks that this seems to contradict our gemara but the Kesef Mishna points out that it doesn't necessarily contradict it if he doesn't learn like Tosafos. From the simple reading of our gemara, the Chachamim only argue by a person blind in one eye but everyone agrees that someone who is blind in both eyes cannot judge.

l'asuyay basar v'dagim u'beitzim

The mishna in nidda 50a says that not everything that is metamey tumas ochlin is chayav b'maasros. The gemara explains that this includes 3 things: meat, fish and eggs. The Tosafos Yom Tov asks three questions on this:
1. The gemara lower down on the page quotes the mishna in maasros that says that mushrooms are not chayav in maasros so why isn't that listed?
2. The Rav M'Barenura explains that these things are excluded because they're not gidulei karka but in the first perek of maaser sheni, it says that cattle is included in gidulei karka.
3. There are some other foods - "pagim boker v'kafnios" which are peturim from maaser so why aren't they listed here?

Tosafos Yom Tov says that when the gemara says "l'asuyay basar v'dagim u'beitzim," it means that even though these things are "ochlim chashuvim" they are still not chayav in maaser because they are not similar to dagan, tirosh v'yitzhar. In other words, there are definitely other foods that may not be chayav in maaser but there are no other ochlim chashuvim.

The Ritva asks another question: Basar is chayav in maaser beheima so why is it included in the list of foods that are not chayav in maaser? He says that it's just referring to basar chaya. He says that was actually the girsa of the Rabeinu Chananel.

I would answer the questions of the Tosafos Yom Tov that the gemara isn't attempting to give an exhaustive list but just a simple list that it doesn't have to qualify in any way. It's not going to list a couple of vegetables unless it's true across the board for vegetables. I would then answer the basar question that either the gemara understood the mishna to be referring only to maaser dagan and not maaser beheima or that when "basar" isn't chayav in maaser beheima, the animals are.

The Rashash quotes the Tosafos Yom Tov and gives an explanation but I don't completely understand it.

Ein Masiin sefakos al pi hanashim

I really have trouble understanding that statement. We know that by isur v'heter we do rely on women as much men. It's only with regard to eidus that we don't rely on them. Is this statement exclusive to women or does it really mean al pi eid echad (no difference if it's a man or woman)? This clearly isn't real eidus so why shouldn't we rely on them? Someone suggested that it could be since it could lead to something serious like the girl being killed if was over on a chiyuv misa but that still seems strange to me. Any time that we rely on eid echad it could eventually lead to some kind of eidus.

The Ritva explains that it's not because of aidus but because an eid echad isn't believed by a davar sheb'erva. So according to him it's clear that it doesn't make a difference it's a man or lady just that it's not two kasher eidim. He then says that the reason we do believe them in some of these cases because it's milsa d'avida l'agluya. It could become obvious if they're lying so we can assume that they're telling the truth.

I think that I still don't understand all the details and maybe I'll have a chance to look at other stuff over Shabbos or later today.

Aruch Laner

This morning, we had two questions that were unanswered and the Aruch Laner asked and answered both of them. I don't own one so I only have shacharis to look at it so if there are any mistakes it's either because I didn't understand it correctly or because I forgot.
1. The Mishna (nidda 47a) says that simanim below are the main thing according to everyone (the only question is if simanim on top are proof that there are/were simanim below). Then there are some other statements and then the gemara (47b) says "tanya nami hachi" that once the simanim are there on the bottom then we don't care about what is on top. What is the gemara doing bringing a braisa to support the mishna? Tanya nami hachi is usually used to support an amoraic statement not a mishna!
The Aruch Laner says that the girsa must be "tanya" and the words "nami hachi" shouldn't be there because it doesn't make sense for the reasons stated and we're bringing this here to show that this is only shitas chachamim but R' Shimon ben Gamliel argues.
2. The gemara on 47b quotes Rshb"g who says that sometimes simanei tachton come first and sometimes elyon come first depending where the girls are from. Tosafos points out that he is arguing on the Rabbonon and R' Meir in our mishna who don't differentiate between where the girls are from. Then the gemara quotes others who talk about which breast gets bigger first. Who cares?
The Aruch Laner offers two (similar) answers but I'll just quote one of them here. The chachamim said that if the simanim are there on top then it's proof that there are/were simanim on the bottom. Now we're qualifying that statement. If the girl is from certain places and she only has the siman on top on one side then it's no proof that there are necessarily simanim on the bottom.

Halacha k'divrei kulan l'hachmir

Rebbe paskens (in the first lashon) on daf 47b that the halacha is in accordance with all the opinions of when simanei bagrus or naarus (see last post for more on that) "l'hachmir."

Rashi has three explanations what this means. In his first pshat he says that it means whichever comes first. She's a full fledged bogeres when any one of the simanim in the list comes. He doesn't like his second pshat where he says that it's referring to miun because he says that all the simanim are talking about simanei bagrus so it doesn't make sense. In his third pshat he says what I think is pashut pshat in Rebbe's statement that we will be machmir until all of the simanim appear. From the time the first siman appears until the last one, she is a safek naara, safek bogeres so, for example, if she and her father both accepted kiddushin from two different men then she'll have to accept a get from both of them.

The difficulty with the first pshat in Rashi is that isn't being machmir like all the opinions. It could be l'kula and it could be l'hachmir. For an explanation as to why Rashi felt compelled to say this pshat see the Aruch Laner.

Tosafos just says that it's all misafek and Rebbe is just being machmir because he's unsure who is correct. It sounds like the second or third pshat in Rashi. On 46a though when Tosafos says that the Mishna is talking about simanei naara, they say that according to his explanation it makes sense why the gemara says "kulan l'hachmir l'inyan miun." In other words, this will answer Rashi's problem with the second pshat (that's how the Maharam explains it). So Tosafos seems to be saying that the second pshat is the correct one and that Rebbe is talking about simanei naara. That's all great. The only thing that bothers me a little is that Tosafos on 36a (d"h hilchasa) says that Rebbe's statement was by simanei bagrus. So he is clearly learning like the third pshat and not the second. I guess you could answer it's different baalei Tosafos.

Rov shnosav

The gemara says that a person who hasn't developed any simanim (no simanei gadol and no simanei sris/aylonis) is considered a gadol when s/he reached "rov shnosav." Rashi doesn't say anything here but my gemara has mosaf Rashi which references Rashi in Baba Basra (155b). There he says that rov shnosav is 36 years (presumably meaning 35 years - the beginning of the 36th year) which is rov 70 and the passuk says in Tehillim that "yemei shnosav bahem shivim shana."

The Rashash points out the Rav and Rambam also say 35 years old is rov shnosav both for a man and for a lady. He asks on this that Tosafos Yom Tov quotes a Rambam that men live longer than women (I guess times have changed) so how could it be the same shiur for both? This morning, I was wondering if the shiur of 35 years would be different nowadays since people live longer. I assumed it wouldn't be but wasn't sure why.

Now I think that the answer to both question is in the Rashi in baba basra. The gemara doesn't mean that a person is considered a gadol when he's reached the majority of his lifespan. That would be a problem of fluctuating shiurim which we always try to avoid. Rather, the gemara means that the shiur is 35 years old and calls it rov shnosav because of the pasuk in Tehilim. So the shiur is 35 for a man and for a woman, then and nowadays.

Simanei Naara or Bogeres?

The Mishna on 47a lists a bunch of simanim and then the gemara (continuing onto 47b) quotes a beraisa which lists a bunch more. Are they simanei naara or bogeres?
Rashi says that both the Mishna and the beraisa are talking about simanei naara.
Tosafos argues and says that the Mishna is simanei naara and the beraisa is simanei bagrus.
The Rambam holds (I didn't see it inside but saw the Aruch L'ner quote it) that both are simanei naara.

Tosafos doesn't understand Rashi because the lists are completely different and R' Yosi gives a different siman in each list. Rashi says that the two different R' Yosi simanim are really the same and isn't bothered that the lists are different. The Lechem Mishna doesn't understand why the Rambam feels compelled to say that they are both simanei naara since that clearly isn't pashut pshat. The Aruch Lener explains that there is another gemara that says that "ein bein naara v'bogeres ela shisha chodoshim." So obviously we don't depend on simanei bogeres but just count six months from the time she became a naara. That's why the Rambam doesn't believe that there are any simanim for a bogeres. The other Rishonim must learn that the shisha chadahim is just the normal but not an absolute.

Tinok Ben Yomo Maachil B'terumah

The mishna at the bottom of 43: says that a tinok ben yomo is maachil b’trumah. Rashi explains that a bas yisroel who is married to a kohen who dies before their child is born, can once again eat terumah “bo b’yom sh’nolad”. L’ch’ora, this is theoretical to make the point that a tinok ben yomo has the status to allow its mother to eat terumah, without requiring the baby to be 30 days old or some other point; but of course, l’maaseh, bo b’yom sh’nolad, the mother is tamei leidah and could not eat terumah anyway. But R’ Akiva Eiger in the Mishnayos learns this quite literally – that the mother can eat terumah bo b’yom sh’nolad. He is masbir that this baby was born yotze dofen aliba the Chachomim that yotze dofen is not mitamei the mother tumas leida.

Shuma

According to the Gemara on 46a, according the Chachomim it seems that if a girl grows hairs between the age of 9 and 12 and one day we have to assume its attricutable to a mole even if it lasts until she reaches Gadlus. The question is, according to the Chachomim, how are we to know when she is no longer considered a minor? Wont we get confused with the hairs that are already there (still attributable to a mole) and any new hairs that may come?

v'hu she'odan bo

R' Yosi B'reb Yehuda on nidda 46a says that a child who grows 2 searos (hairs) between the age of 9 and 12 is considered a gadol. The gemara qualifies that by saying "v'hu she'odan bo." Rashi explains that if it's still there when he turns 13 then it is "iglai milsa" that it was not shuma but really 2 searos to consider him a gadol. What does that mean? Does it mean that he was really a gadol from the time that he grew the 2 searos or that he is only a gadol once he turns 13?

When I read the gemara/Rashi, I understood it to mean that it turns out he was a gadol l'maphrea - from the time the searos grew as long as the searos are still there when he turns 13 so we can be sure that it wasn't just shuma. However, R' Tendler corrected me and sure enough someone with the Artscroll said that the footnote on the bottom quoted the Ritva and others who learn that he's only a gadol once he turns 13. I looked up the Ritva in the Mossad Harav Kook edition and the footnote on the bottom says that it's actually a machlokes amoraim in the Yerushalmi about whether it works l'maphrea or not. It's also a machlokes Rishonim - he quotes the Rosh who argues with the Ritva and holds it is l'maphrea.

Girl at 13, boy at 12?

The gemara in nidda 45b quotes R' Shimon Ben Elazar who has the unique opinion that a girl becomes bas mitzva at 13 and a boy becomes bar mitzva at 12. The gemara explains their machlokes. When I first read the gemara I assumed that the machlokes was just with regard to nedarim and the question is as the gemara explains who "wises up" first. Is it the girl because of her bina yeseira or the boy because of his street smarts. However, when it comes to who physically matures first and when they are chayavim in mitzvos and able to be punished everyone agrees that it's 13 for a boy and 12 for a girl. I was shocked when R' Tendler said that it's a general machlokes but again he was right as Tosafos (d'H eilu) makes clear. The gemara on 46a says that the machlokes also applies to miun so obviously they are not having a narrow machlokes by nedarim but a general machlokes by kol haTorah kula.

I wasn't satisfied though because it just didn't seem pashut pshat in our Gemara. I was happy to see that the Artscroll referenced a Chsam Sofer on this topic. I looked it up and he quoted R' Chananel who says that their machlokes is only by nedarim and not by anything else. That made me feel better but I really had to daven so I didn't have time to read the entire thing. If you want to see how he explains the gemara on 46a, ayim sham ;-).

Shomer psaim Hashem

The entire concept is hard for me to understand. It's a nice thought that Hashem protects the fools but here (nidda 45a) there's a simple suggestion - let them be meshameshes b'moch and then we won't have to rely on Hashem protecting the fools. So why don't the Chachamim tell her to try to protect herself from danger but if someone is too stupid to listen then Hashem will protect her anyway?

Also, the Chachamim say "achas zu v'achas zu meshameshes k'darka." When I first read the gemara I assumed that it meant that they argued only in the case of ktana and said either way - whether she's less than 12 or over 12, she should be meshameshes k'darka because Hashem will protect the fools. However, I was corrected that they meant in all three cases - ktana, meuberes and meinika. Rashi and Tosafos don't clarify but that is the way Artscroll explained. I looked up a couple of other Rishonim/Acharonim this morning and didn't see anyone comment on it but it's clear that everyone understands the machlokes the way Artscroll explained it. The thing that bothers me about that pshat is that the "fool" here is the lady. So it makes sense to apply "shomer psaim Hashem" in the case of the ktana because she's acting foolishly but Hashem will protect her anyway. However, by a meuberes and meinika we're worried about the baby/fetus. The baby isn't acting foolishly. Yet we're telling the mother to be meshameshes k'darka because Hashem will protect the fools. We need Him to protect the baby not the mother here. Whatever, it's not such a strong question but it just bothered me because it seems that we're misapplying the passuk here.

As I said, I looked around a bit for an answer and didn't find anything but I did come across some other points on this meshameshes b'moch. It seems that it's a machlokes Rishonim how to understand this machlokes tannaim. Does R' Meir say that these three women have to be meshamshes b'moch and the Chachamim say that it's up to her (this pshat would help answer the first question) or does R' Meir say that these three women are allowed to but the Chachamim forbid it even in these three cases (that's how I understood it when I read the gemara).

None of this is halacha l'maaseh for a number of reasons. Suffice it to say that if you're wondering what to do for yourself that you should ask a shayla and not rely on this post (of course you should never rely on anything I say for halachic purposes).

For more on this topic you can see what Kollel Iyun Hadaf had to say on yevamos 12b.