Komentarz do Nidda 6:15

בא סימן התחתון - two [pubic] hairs which is the sign of being a young woman.

Introduction Today's mishnah is really a continuation of the topic from last chapter. It discusses what counts as a sign of having reached puberty the development of pubic hair (the lower sign) or the development of breasts (the upper sign).

עד שלא בא העליון – the sign of breasts, and this is בוחל/the [intermediate] stage of female puberty between childhood and full womanhood.

If the lower sign appears before the upper sign, she can perform halitzah or yibbum. The appearance of the lower sign (pubic hair) counts as having reached puberty, even if the upper sign (breast development) had not yet appeared. Therefore, she is fully subject to the laws of halitzah and yibbum, for she is certainly of majority age.

או חולצת או מתיבמת – because she is an adult. That the [pubic] hairs are a prominent/distinguished sign, and we rely upon them.

If the upper sign appears before the lower sign, even though this is impossible: Rabbi Meir says: she doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum. And the sages say: she can perform halitzah or yibbum. For they have said: it is possible for the lower sign to appear before the upper sign, but it is impossible for the upper sign to appear before the lower sign. Both Rabbi Meir and the other sages agree that the upper sign cannot appear before the lower sign. However, Rabbi Meir still thinks that if such a thing does appear to happen, we must be concerned lest it did happen. In such a case, she couldn't do halitzah or yibbum because she is still a minor. So if she was married and her husband died without children, she would have to wait till she hits majority age to perform either halitzah or yibbum. Note, however, that this is according to Rabbi Meir, who holds that a minor girl cannot do yibbum, lest it eventually turns out the she is an "aylonit," one who never becomes sexually mature. The other sages (see 5:4) hold that we are not concerned with such an eventuality. Even a minor girl could perform yibbum, but not halitzah. In any case, the other sages say that if the upper sign appears then the lower sign must have appeared. She is considered to have reached majority age, and she can even do halitzah.

אע"פ שאי אפשר – [even though it is impossible] for the Rabbis for the upper sign (i.e., breasts) to come without the lower one (i.e., the two pubic hairs), but from when the upper sign comes, even though they examined and did not find the lower one, we state the word that the lower sign definitely came but that it fell off, nevertheless, according to Rabbi Meir, she does not perform Halitzah nor does she engage in levirate marriage. For Rabbi Meir holds that it is possible that the upper sign comes without the lower one, but we rely upon the lower one, therefore she is still a minor and she doesn’t perform Halitzah nor does she engage in levirate marriage. But Rabbi Meir according to his rationale who stated that a male child and a female child do not perform Halitzah neither do they engage in levirate marriage. A male child, perhaps he will be found to be a eunuch, and a female child, perhaps she will be found to be a sexually impotent woman.

או חולצת או מתיבמת – and even if she is a minor, she engages in levirate marriage according to the Rabbis, for they do not concern themselves to the limitation/narrowing qualification that perhaps she will be found to be a sexually impotent woman, for most women are not sexually impotent. However, regarding Halitzah (i.e., the removal of the shoe of her dead husband’s brother who refuses to engage in levirate marriage and spitting in his face), we require that she is an adult, even according to the Rabbis, because it is written (Deuteronomy 25;7), “But if the man/איש does not want to marry his brother’s widow,” in the portion, and we make an analogy of [the situation of the] woman to that of the man. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

מפני שאמרו אפשר לתחתון לבוא וכו' – even though it (i.e., the Mishnah) teaches it in the first clause, it returns and teaches it another time, because it needs to give support to [Mishnah 2 where it states], “similarly, etc.” which is akin to it.

כל כלי חרס שהוא מכניס – liquid, when he places it on the water there is in a large incision that the water enters into it, all the more so that if he places the water into it, the liquid departs outside. But there is a small incision that lets it out but does not let it in. And we derive from this that which we hold – that a completely earthenware utensil that was perforated it is not invalid to sanctify in it the waters of the sin-offering [of the Red Heifer], that is, to place within it the water of the ashes of the Red Heifer, until he makes a large incision where the liquid goes in. But if he made a small incision where the liquid goes out, it does leave the category of a utensil and not find fault in this. But always a small incision is not like removing liquid that removes it from the category of being a utensil other than a large vessel which turned out to be defective/unwieldy alone (as for example, its handles being broken off or being cracked, and therefore used as a receptacle for refuse, as a pickling pot or as a receiver of drippings from a leaking vessel), that is broken vessel that is was designated to fill up with water and to use it, if it has a perforation/hold through letting liquid out, it is invalidated from the category of a utensil, for we don’t say, bring another large defective vessel and we will place it underneath this defective vessel to receive the liquid that departs. But a complete vessel that has been perforated while removing liquid is not invalidated from anything, because a person is concerned about it and doesn’t break it, and uses it and he brings the shard of a vessel and places it underneath to receive the liquid that comes out from it. And from here this is the explanation of our Mishnah: All earthenware utensils that are invalidated for the waters of the sin-offering [of the Red Heifer] is invalid for a large defective vessel, but there are those which are invalid for a large defective vessel but are fit/kosher for the waters of the sin-offering.

Introduction The next 9 mishnayot have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Rather, they are all formulated in the same format as yesterday's mishnah it is possible for x without y, but it is not possible for y without x.

כל אבר שיש בו צפורן – as for example, an extra claw/finger that are on the fingers of the hand, if it has a fingernail/talon, it is considered a limb. And it defiles through contact and by carrying and in a tent, like a limb that has a bone that defiles in a tent, and even if it lacks an olive-bulk of flesh, for we hold that limbs have no [distinct] measurement.

Similarly, any [hole in] an earthen vessel that lets in a liquid will let it out, but there may be one that will let liquid out and will not let it in. An earthenware vessel that has a hole large enough that it lets liquid in is pure because it is no longer usable (see Kelim 3:1, 8:2). Any vessel that has a hole large enough to let in liquid will also let it out. However, there may be a vessel that lets liquid out but doesn't let it in. Such a vessel is still considered usable and is therefore still impure.

ויש שיש בו עצם – but it is not considered a limb if it is extra, since it doesn’t have a nail/talon, and it defiles through contact and carrying, but does not defile in the tent all the while that there isn’t on it an olive’s-bulk of flesh. But if it is not extra, it definitely defiles in a tent because of being a limb, even though it doesn’t have a nail/talon and even though there isn’t an olive’s-bulk of flesh (see also Talmud Niddah 49b).

Any limb that grows a nail also has a bone in it, but there may be one that has a bone in it but does not grow a nail. A limb from a corpse that has a nail is impure, even if the limb is very small (see Ohalot 1:7). Any limb that grows a nail will also grow a bone, but there can be a limb that has a bone without a nail. The Talmud explains that an extra finger (or toe) that doesn't have a nail does defile through contact and by being carried but it doesn't convey impurity in an ohel (a tent) as would a limb with a nail.

כל המיטמא במדרס – the person with gonorrhea. All utensils that is worthy of becoming a primary source of ritual impurity through the Levitical uncleanness arising from a person with gonorrhea’s immediate contact by treading on/leaning against something, as for example a utensil that is designated for lying and/or sitting if a person came in contact with the dead or was defiled in the tent of a corpse. And there is a utensil that completely becomes susceptible to receive all defilements and becomes a primary source of ritual impurity through [contact with] the dead corpse but does not become a primary source of ritual impurity through the person with gonorrhea through lying and/or sitting, as for example, if the person with gonorrhea bent over/turned upside down a Seah and sat upon it, or a field requiring a Tarkav (i.e., a dry-measure, three Kabs) and sat upon it, that very utensil is not impure through treading to become a primary source of ritual impurity, but rather first-degree ritual impurity through its contact with a person with gonorrhea, as it is written (Leviticus 15:4): “[Whoever sits on an object] on which the one with a discharge has sat [shall wash his clothes, bathe in water], and remain impure [until evening],”he who is designated for sitting, excluding this one that they say to him: “Stand and let us our work.” But if he came in contact with a dead corpse, he becomes a primary source of ritual impurity, for we don’t say with someone who is defiled through contact with the dead, “Stand and let us do our work.”

Whatever is susceptible to midras uncleanness is also susceptible to corpse-uncleanness. For an item to be susceptible to midras uncleanness, which is transmitted by sitting, laying down or leaning upon something, the item must have been made to be sat upon or laid upon, for instance a mattress or a chair. Therefore, not all items are susceptible to midras uncleanness (for instance, my shirt is not susceptible). However, all vessels (this includes almost anything of practical use made by a human being) are susceptible to corpse uncleanness. So if an item, such as a sofa, is susceptible to midras uncleanness, it must also be susceptible to corpse uncleanness.

But there are things that are susceptible to corpse uncleanness but not to midras-uncleanness. Such as my shirt, or my cereal bowl (or your dress and serving platter, if you like).

כל הראוי לדון דיני נפשות – all the more so is appropriate/fit to judge monetary matters.

Anyone who is fit to try capital cases is also fit to try monetary cases. But there are those who are fit to try monetary suits and and unfit to try capital cases. The laws regarding who may adjudicate a capital case are more stringent than those for monetary cases. For instance, a convert or a mamzer cannot judge capital cases (see Sanhedrin 4:2).

ויש שראוי לדון דימי ממונות – as for example, a Mamzer, who is fit/kosher to judge monetary matters but is invalid to judge capital crimes (see also, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 4, Mishnah 2 and the Bartenura commentary on the concluding clause of that Mishnah).

Anyone who is eligible to act as judge is eligible to serve as a witness. But there may be one who is eligible to act as witness and not as judge. Similarly, the laws regarding who can serve as a judge are stricter than those for a witness. For instance, an unlearned person can serve as witness, but not as a judge.

ויש שכשר להעיד ואינו כשר לדון – as for example, a person who is blind in one of his eyes. But our - Mishnah is according to Rabbi Meir who expounds on Scripture, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:5): “and every lawsuit and case of assault is subject to their ruling/ועל-פיהם יהיה כל-ריב וכל-נגע. He makes an analogy between ריב/lawsuit and נגע/case of assault – that just as a case of assault is not with a blind person, as it is written (Leviticus 13:12): “whatever the priest can see/לכל-מראה א=עיני הכהן,” even a lawsuit is not with a blind person. But the Halakha is not like this anonymously taught [Mishnah], for the Sages dispute on that of Rabbi Meir and state that just as we find that the closing of legal proceedings is at night, even though we can’t see נגעים/people afflicted by plagues/suspected leprosy at night, that is so that a blind person in one of his eyes is fit to judge even though he is not kosher/fit to see plagues/suspected leprosy.

כל שחייב במעשרות מיטמא טומאת אוכלים – for there isn’t a thing that is obligated in tithing that isn’t food (see also Tractate Maaserot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1).

Whatsoever is subject to tithes is susceptible to food-uncleanness. Only food is subject to tithes and terumah. Therefore, anything that is subject to tithes must be a food.

ויש שמיטמא טומאת אוכלים ואינו חייב במעשרות – as for example meat, and fish and eggs, which do not grow in the ground (note: but it should be pointed out that cattle are tithed – see Tractate Rosh Hashanah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1).

But there are foods that are to food-uncleanness and not subject to tithes. However, not all food is subject to tithes and terumah, for instance things that don't grow from the ground (see Maasrot 1:1). Therefore, there can be food that is subject to impurity but not liable for tithes and terumah.

כל שחייב בפאה חייב במעשרות – for concerning the corner of the field/פאה, they (i.e., the Rabbis) stated a general principle in [Tractate] Peah (Chapter 1, Mishnah 4): “All that is edible, privately owned, grown in the ground, harvested as a crop all at once (not singly as they become ripe) and can be preserved in storage is subject to [designation as] Peah.” Whereas regarding tithes/מעשר it is taught in the Mishnah [Tractate Maaserot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1]: “All that is food, cultivated and which grows from the earth is subject to [the law of] tithes.” But, “preserved in storage and harvested as a crop all at once” is not taught. It is found that a vegetable is not preserved in storage and a fig and things similar to them are not harvested as a crop all at once, are subject to the laws of tithes but they are exempt from Peah.

Whatever is subject to peah is also subject to tithes. But there is [produce] which is subject to tithes and is not subject to peah. The category of produce that is subject to peah (leaving the corner of one's fields) is narrower than that liable for tithes. For produce to be liable for peah it has to be a type that ripens and is harvested all at the same time. Thus, figs, which ripen gradually, are not liable to peah. The produce also has to be able to be stored for a long time, so vegetables are not liable to peah (see Peah 1:4). However, anything that is liable for peah is in the category of liable for tithes.

כל שחייב בראשית הגז – ewes/sheep and rams alone.

Whatever [beast] is subject to the laws of the first of the fleece is also subject to that of the priestly gifts.
But there may be [a beast] that is subject to the law of the priestly gifts and not to that of the first of the fleece.
There are two mitzvot mentioned in this mishnah: the "first of the fleece" and "priestly gifts." A person must give the first of the fleece that he shears to the priest. When he offers a sacrifice that doesn't entirely go to the priest, he gives the priest the shoulder, the cheeks and the stomach the "priestly gifts." Only female sheep are liable to the first of the fleece, but all beasts offered as a sacrifice are liable for the priestly gifts.

חייב מתנות – the shoulder, the cheeks and the stomach (see Deuteronomy 18:3).

ויש שחייב במתנות – that the obligation of [priestly] gifts is for bulls and goats and sheep (at least one year old).

ויש שיש לו שביעית ואין לו ביעור – as for example the things whose roots remain in the ground whether during the months of heat/summer or during the rainy season, like the LOF (i.e., a plant similar to Colocasia, with edible leaves and root, and bearing beans – it is classified with onions and garlic, leaves of the wild LOF and the mint (see Tractate Niddah 51b), which they call NANA in Arabic, and MINTA in the foreign tongue, for since they do not ever cease from the field, there is no obligation to remove them from the house, as it is written (Leviticus 25:7): “and our cattle and the beasts in your land [may eat all its yield],” that all the time that beasts eat in the field, your cattle eats from the house, if the beasts cease from the field, the cattle cease from the house. And all of these that did not cease for the beasts from the field, there is no need to remove them from the house.

Whatever is subject to the law of removal is also subject to the sabbatical year.
But there is [a kind or produce] that is subject to the sabbatical year and is not subject to the law of removal.
Again, there are two laws mentioned in this mishnah. The first is "the law of removal." Produce grown during the sabbatical year can be gathered into one's house and stored, but as soon as it ceases to grow in the field such that animals can eat it, it must be removed from storage in one's house.
"Subject to the sabbatical year" means that one cannot do business with it i.e. bring it to the marketplace and sell it there. Furthermore, any produce that grows in one's field must be made ownerless.
All produce is "subject to the sabbatical year." However, if the produce grows in the field all year round, and is always available for animal consumption, then it need not be removed from one's house. Sheviit 7:2 gives some examples.

קשקשת – the clothing of the fish that is attached to it (i.e., scales).

Whatever has scales has fins, But there are fish that have fins and no scales. For fish to be kosher they need fins and scales. Some fish have fins but no scales, but if a fish has scales, for sure it has fins (see Hullin 3:7).

סנפיר- wings that it flies with them, and whatever has scales, it is known that it has fins and there is no need to examine after it further, for it is a pure fish.

Whatever has horns has [split] hooves; But there are animals that have [split] hooves and no horns. Animals need split hooves to be kosher. Any animal with horns must have split hooves. However, there are animal that have split hooves, such as a pig, but do not have horns.

ויש שיש לו סנפיר – but it is an impure fish, for it lacks scales.

יש לו טלפים - its hoofs are cloven, for there are no horns other than for pure cattle and beasts.

ואין לו קרנים – as for example, swine, whose feet are cloven but they don’t have horns.

ויש שטעון ברכה לפניו ואין טעון ברכה לאחריו – such as ritual fringes/Tzizit, and Tefillin/phylacteries and Mezuzah, Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav, that we recite a blessing upon them before doing/performing them, but they don’t require a blessing afterwards.

Whatever requires a blessing after it requires one before it;
But there are things that require a blessing before them and not after them.
One must recite a blessing before eating anything, even of the smallest amount. One also must recite a blessing before the performance of a mitzvah. But in both of these cases, there is no blessing recited after.
However, anything that one blesses after it, such as a sufficient portion of food, one would certainly have to bless before it as well.

תינוקת שהביאה שתי שערות – after [reaching] twelve years of age and one day.

Introduction Today's mishnah returns to the main subject of the chapter at what stage of physical development a child becomes obligated in the commandments.

וחולצת או מתיבמת – even though that it teaches [in the Mishnah] that she is obligated in all of the commandments that are stated in the Torah, it was necessary to teach, [either] she performs Halitzah or engages in levirate marriage, for you might have thought that [only] "איש"/a man – is written in the portion (Deuteronomy 25:7): “But if the man/איש does not want [to marry his brother’s widow,” therefore a male who is a minor does not perform Halitzah, but a woman, who is not written in the portion other than as (Deuteronomy 25:7): “his brother’s widow/יבמתו” – whether she is an adult or whether a child, performs Halitzah or engages in levirate marriage. It comes to teach us that if she produces/brings forth two [pubic] hairs, it is so, but if not, it is not so. What is the reason? That we make an analogy between a woman to a man.

If a girl has grown two pubic hairs she may perform either halitzah or contract levirate marriage, and she is obligated in all the commandments in the Torah. So too if a boy has grown two pubic hairs, he is obligated in all of the commandments in the Torah. Once the "lower sign" two pubic hairs have appeared on a boy or girl, they become fully obligated in all of the mitzvot in the Torah. In addition, for a girl this means that she is liable for halitzah or yibbum; if her husband died without offspring, she must perform either halitzah or yibbum with her dead husband's brother.

וכן תינוק שהביא שתי שערות – after thirteen years and one day. And we establish twelve years for a female and thirteen for a male, is not a definitive sign, but rather an estimation/mark.

He is fit to become a wayward and rebellious son from the time he has grown two hairs until the time when his beard forms a circle. This refers to the lower, and not to the upper one, but the sages spoke using a euphemism. For a boy to be subject to the laws of being a wayward and rebellious son (see Sanhedrin 8) he must have reached majority age, but not be so old that he is no longer subject to his parents' authority. This is translated physically to mean that he has already grown two pubic hairs but he is not yet fully physically matured (meaning more pubic hair is left to grow). The beard referred to here is indeed the "lower" beard, but the rabbis used a euphemism (I'm trying to do this too, but it's not easy and to remain understood).

וראוי להיות בן סורר ומורה משיביא שתי שערות עד שיקיף זקן התחתון – but prior to his bringing forth two [pubic] hairs, he is not liable for punishment. But after he has grown an encircling beard, he is worthy of giving birth (i.e., engaging in sexual intercourse for purposes of reproduction) and the All-Merciful stated (Deuteronomy 21:18): “If a man has [a wayward and defiant] son/בן,” but not one worthy of being a father.

A girl who has grown two hairs may no longer refuse the marriage. Rabbi Judah says: [she may refuse] until the black [hairs] predominate. A minor girl who is married off by her brother or mother because her father is no longer alive has the right to refuse the marriage until she becomes of majority age. In Hebrew, this is called "meun," and it is annulment, not divorce. Once she hits puberty and doesn't refuse the marriage, it is as if she has accepted it and she can no longer refuse. Rabbi Judah extends her right to refuse the marriage till the time when she has enough pubic hair that the region looks mostly black.

התחתון ולא העליון – meaning to say, which encircling beard did they mention, with the one of the bottom, but not the one of the top (i.e., the beard of the face).

עד שירבה השחור (until the dark [hair] predominates) – that this place becomes darkened from man hairs. And the legal decision is, that the daughter may [express] refusal until she is twelve years of age and one day. But after this time, if she brought forth signs [of her young womanhood], she is not able to refuse. But if she did not bring forth signs, she can continue to refuse and even until she is twenty-years of age and she will demonstrate signs in her of being a sexually undeveloped woman. But these words [apply] when he did not come upon her [sexually] when she was twelve-years and one-day old, but if he came upon her after this time, she is not able to refuse any longer. But even though signs of [her womanhood] had not appeared in her, we are concerned that perhaps she brought forth the two [pubic] hairs and they fell off.

שתי שערות האמורות בפרה – for we hold (Tractate Parah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 5) that two black hairs invalidate her (i.e., the Red Heifer).

The two hairs spoken of in regard to the red heifer and in regard to leprosy as well as those spoken of anywhere else must be long enough for their tips to be bent to their roots, the words of Rabbi Ishmael.
Rabbi Eliezer says: long enough to be grasped by a finger-nail.
Rabbi Akiva says: long enough to be taken off with scissors.
Today's mishnah clarifies how long a hair must be for it to count as a hair.
Section one: Besides the context of our chapter hairs that are a sign of human puberty there are several other "halakhic hairs." The first is that black or white hairs can disqualify a red heifer from being used in the purification ritual (see Parah 2:5). The second is that two hairs are a sign of impurity in a leprous spot (see Negaim 4:4, 10:2-3). The issue of hair also comes up in the commandment that a nazirite shave all of his hairs at the end of his naziriteship, and that a metzora (a person with skin disease) shave when becoming pure. If either of them leaves two hairs, the shaving doesn't count.
In all of these cases, Rabbi Ishmael holds that the hair must be long enough that one could take the tip and bend it back to the root.
Rabbi Eliezer says that it need only be possible to grasp the nail with one's finger nail. Rabbi Akiva says that it must be long enough that one could cut it with scissors. According to commentators, this is the smallest measure.

ובנגעים – a white hair, for we hold in the Torah of the Priests (The Midrash Halakha of Sifra) (see also Tractate Negaim, Chapter 4, Mishnah 4) that the minimum limitation [of the word] שער/hair is [at least] two.

האמורות בכל מקום – regarding a young male child and a young female child.

לקרוץ (to cut, make an incision) - to hold a bit.

שיהו ניטלות בזוג – of scissors, this is the greater measure. And the Halakha is according to all of them for stringency, and when it is cut with a fingernail, it is the smallest measure of all of them, but she does not complain, lest she is an adult woman, but regarding Halitzah, she does not engage in it, until there is the greatest measure of all of them (see Talmud Niddah 52b).

הרואה כתם (she sees a dark-red stain [on her clothing or body as an indication of uncleanness]) – that she found a drop of blood on her garment.

A woman who found a blood-stain is in a spoiled condition and must take into consideration the possibility that it was due to zivah, the words of Rabbi Meir.
If a woman makes a mistake in her reckoning there is no re-opening for her [of the niddah count] earlier than seven, nor later than after seventeen days.
But the sages say: in the case of blood-stains there is no [need to consider the possibility of their being] due to zivah. Section five: This somewhat complicated halakhah has to do with counting a woman’s menstrual cycle, in order to know the difference between menstrual blood (which causes a woman to be impure for 7 days, even if she continued to bleed all the way through the seventh and non-menstrual blood (which causes a woman to be impure for one day, unless she sees blood for three straight days, in which case she is impure for 7 full days after she stops seeing. The rabbis instituted an 18 day cycle to calculate when blood was menstrual and when it is non-menstrual. When a woman first sees blood she considers it to be menstrual blood and she is impure for seven days, from the time she saw the first blood. After these seven days, any blood seen over the next 11 days is considered to be zivah (non-menstrual. After these eleven days are over, she returns to counting seven days, during which any blood is considered to be menstrual blood. Our mishnah deals with a situation where a woman made a mistake in counting these days (i.e. she didn’t know whether she was in the seven days or in the and she saw blood. She doesn’t know whether the blood she saw is to be considered menstrual, in which case she is impure for seven days, or zivah, in which case she is impure for only one day, or a full seven days if she sees zivah for three straight days. Our mishnah teaches that the beginning of her days of menstrual blood cannot be less then seven days after she doesn’t see any more blood, nor more than seventeen days, all counted from the time she first saw blood. How this works out is a bit complicated, but I shall try to explain very briefly. Let’s say she saw blood for one day, if these were “days of niddah” she could begin to count her next days of niddah after seventeen days, which is the maximum amount. This would mirror the normal situation. However, if she sees blood for several straight days, it may be possible that she only has to wait seven more days after not seeing blood to begin counting her menstrual blood days. Let’s say she sees blood for three straight days, she can then begin counting her menstrual days after seven days without seeing blood, because it doesn’t matter if the blood she saw was menstrual or not, seven days are sufficient to begin counting again. I realize that this is all very complicated, and indeed entire books exist dedicated to these complicated calculations. We will learn much more about this subject when we learn Tractate Niddah.
Section one: According to Rabbi Meir, if a woman finds a blood stain on her clothing she is in a "spoiled condition." What this means is that since she doesn't know when the blood stain got there she doesn't know when to begin counting the eleven days of "zivah" the eleven days in which blood is considered zivah and not menstruation. This is a complicated system of calculation that I explained in Arakhin 2:1. For your benefit I have put the explanation of this clause below.
Furthermore, if she sees the stain three days into her wearing the garment during the "days of zivah," and the stain is large enough that it could contain three days of blood flow (this is not such a large amount, three split-beans worth of blood) she must be concerned that she had blood flow for three days and therefore she is a zavah. In other words, this is a pretty lousy situation.
Section two: The other sages say that if a woman sees a stain on her clothing, she does not have to treat it as if it is potentially zivah.

הרי זו מקולקלת (she is disarrayed) – she doesn’t know an opening to her menstruating to know when will begin the eleven days that are between one Niddah and the next one (the days of protracted menstruation/flux), for she doesn’t know when it appears.

וחוששת משום זוב -if the three days of [consecutive] blood flow have passed from when she wore this garment, and she found upon it a large blood stain the measure of three pounded beans and more, meaning to say, a bit more than three pounded beans, they were doubtful that perhaps each one of them came on one day, and it would be from doubt a large protracted menstruation/flux, and even though there were found in one place.

וחכמים אומרים אין בכתמים משום זוב (bloodstains are not subject [to the laws of uncleanness] because of Zivah) – In the Gemara (Tractate Niddah 52b) it establishes the matter of the Sages here, as an individual opinion, and stated that it is [the statement] of Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonos. But Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonos admits that if she wore three dresses for girls on three days of her days of flux/protracted menstruation, a dress per day, and she found on each of them a blood stain, that she worries about flux. But one does not have to say that if she saw two days of blood from her body, but on the third day wore a dress that was examined for her and she found on it a blood stain, that it is obvious that she worries about protracted menstruation/flux. But it is not disputed that Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonos is the “Sages” of our Mishnah, other than when she wears one dress for three days from the days of her protracted menstruation/flux and at the end found a large bloodstain the measurement of three pounded beans and more in one place, or even in three [different] places, for he holds that in this case she is not concerned/worried about protracted menstruation, since she did not have blood stains on three dresses. But Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis dispute upon him, holding, that when she found the measurement of three pounded beans and more on one dress, whether in one place or whether in three places, she worries about protracted menstruation/flux. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonos.

הרואה יום אחד עשר – which is at the end of the days of protracted menstruation/flux and on the morrow begins the days of Niddah.

If a woman observed [a discharge of blood] on the eleventh day at twilight, at the beginning of a menstruation period and at the end of a menstruation period, at the beginning of a zivah period and at the end of a zivah period; Albeck explains this section according to the Talmud which reads it as if it says, "at the beginning of a menstruation period and at the end of a zivah period or at the end of a menstruation period and at the end of a zivah period." In other words, a woman sees a discharge of blood at twilight at the end of the eleventh day of her zivah period which could also be considered the beginning of her menstrual period. If it is zivah, she is impure for one day for every day she saw blood; if it is menstrual blood then she is impure for seven days. The same doubt occurs if she sees blood on the seventh day at twilight of her menstrual days she cannot be sure if it is menstrual blood or zivah blood.

בין השמשות – it is doubtfully day which is the blood of protracted menstruation/flux, doubtfully the night and the beginning of Niddah.

On the fortieth day after the birth of a male or on the eightieth day after the birth of a female, If she saw blood at twilight on the fortieth day after the birth of a male or the 80th day after the birth of a female, we are not sure if the blood is pure because for 40/80 days after the birth a male or female child a woman's blood is pure, or it is impure blood.

תחלת נדה וסוף נדה – in the Gemara (Tractate Niddah 53b) it explains that this is what it teaches: the beginning of Niddah and the conclusion of the days of protracted menstruation/flux. But on the seventh day of her menstruation/Niddah and the beginning of her protracted menstruation/flux. That is to say, at twilight of the eleven [days], if it is night, it is the appearance of the beginning of Niddah, but if it is day time, the blood is the blood of the end of flux. But if she say it (i.e., blood) two days prior to this, she worries because of flux. And similarly, if she saw it (i.e., blood) on the seventh day of her Niddah at twilight, we are doubtful also, if it is night, for the blood is the blood of the beginning of flux/protracted menstruation, but if she saw it two days afterwards she worries because of flux. But if it is day time, her seeing it [i.e., blood) is the end of the days of Niddah/menstruation , and even though she sees [blood] two days afterwards it is not flux.

At twilight in all these cases, behold these women have made a mistake [in their reckoning]. In all of these cases we must consider the woman as having lost her count. The women must act as if they were zavot and if they had blood for two more days after the first discharge, they must bring the appropriate hatat (sin-offering) sacrifice at the end of their period of impurity. However, since we are not sure whether or not they are actually liable for the hatat, it may not be eaten.

יום ארבעים לזכר ויום שמונים לנקבה. בין השמשות לכולן – meaning to say on which of these that she should see [blood] at twilight, it is doubtful that it is [ritually] impure blood and doubtful if it is pure/clean blood,, but if she sees [blood] two other days outside of this, it is blood of protracted menstruation/flux from doubt, and she brings a sacrifice which is not consumed, for all who err bring a sacrifice and it is not consumed.

Rabbi Joshua said: before you fix the situation for the women who lack intelligence, come and fix the situation for the wise ones. According to Albeck, Rabbi Joshua's comment refers to Mishnah 2:1, where we learned that intelligent women could help supervise women who are not considered to have halakhic intelligence. He says to the sages who composed that mishnah instead of worrying about those woman who lack the intelligence to keep track of their own cycles, you should worry about the intelligent women, who theoretically are able to keep track of these things, but because of the complications of this system, cannot do so.

השוטות (the foolish) – to the foolish who do not know when are the days of Niddah/menstruation and when are the days of flux, they are fools.

עד שאתם מתקנים את השוטות – these foolish women who saw [blood] at the doubtful time period.

בואו ותקנו את הפקחות = that see [blood] at the certain hour and they need repair and to explain/separate the days of their watchfulness and their [days of] sexual intercourse, as for example these that we brought in the Baraita (Tractate Niddah 54a): She who sees [blood] one day is [ritually] impure and one day pure all of her days, and she always sees [blood] during the day but not at night, she engages in sexual intercourse on the eight day from when she saw [blood] for the first time, for she is pure, for behold that on the seventh [day] in the evening she immersed [in the Mikveh] and she didn’t see [blood] until the ninth day, therefore, she engages in sexual intercourse the complete eighth day night and day and the night afterwards which is the morning of the ninth day. And she engages in sexual intercourse for four nights out of eighteen days of her first sighting [of blood], for behold this woman will not be ever be a woman with flux/protracted menstruation, since she doesn’t see [blood] for three consecutive [days]. But when she sees [blood] on the ninth [day], she would observe the tenth [day in abstinence from sexual intercourse] and engage in sexual intercourse at night. And then she would see [blood] on the eleventh [day], and would observe the twelfth [day in abstinence from sexual intercourse] and then engage in sexual intercourse at night, that is two. And she would see [blood] on the thirteenth [day] and observe the fourteenth [day in abstinence from sexual intercourse] and engage in sexual intercourse at night, that is three [days]. And then she would see [blood] on the fifteenth [day] and she would observe the sixteenth [day in abstinence from sexual intercourse] and engage in sexual intercourse in the evening, that is four [days]. And on the seventeenth [day] she would see [blood], and she would observe the eighteenth [day in abstinence from sexual intercourse], behold the eighteen days have been completed and she engaged in sexual intercourse for only four nights. Except for the eighth day and its night, the last act of sexual intercourse is not within the eighteen [days]. And on the morrow on the nineteenth [day], when she sees [blood], this is the beginning of her Niddah/menstrual cycle, for the eleven days between one menstrual period and the other have been completed, and she returns to her count as we have stated. But there is more that requires amendment for the days of their sexual relations, and all of it is brought in the Baraita (Tractate Niddah 54a) in the Gemara in our chapter.