1)

(a)The ramifications of R. Yehoshua ben Beseira's (see Tosfos Yom-Tov) testimony declaring the blood of Neveilos Tahor - is that they are not Metamei bi'Kezayis (like the blood of Sheratzim), only bi'Revi'is (see Tosfos Yom-Tov).

(b)When, in Perek 4, Beis Shamai declare the former Tahor, and Beis Hillel, Tamei - they are referring to the Shui'ur Revi'is.

(c)The only thing whose blood is Metamei bi'Kezayis like its flesh is - Sheratzim.

2)

(a)R. Shimon ben Beseira testified that if a Tamei person touches some of the ashes of a Parah Adumah that are lying inside a vessel - the vessel combines the pieces, to render them all Tamei.

(b)The real source for this ruling is - mid'Rabanan (Ma'alah Asu be'Kodesh u've'Eifer Chatas).

(c)He attaches it to the Pasuk (Asmachta) "Kaf Achas Asarah Zahav Mele'ah Ketores", which he interprets as 'the spoon renders everything that is on it, one (combined [see Tosfos Yom-Tov])'.

3)

(a)R. Akiva added a T'vul-Yom who touched a part of 'So'les, Ketores, Levonah ve'ha'Gechalim (see Tosfos Yom-Tov)' - even though a T'vul-Yom, who is a Sheini le'Tum'ah, can only render Pasul, but not Tamei.

(b)The coals he is talking about - are those that the Kohen Gadol shovels on to the pan on Yom Kipur for the Avodas ha'Ketores (see Tosfos Yom-Tov).

(c)The additional Chidush with regard to them is - that coal is not generally subject to Tum'ah at all (see Tosfos Yom-Tov).

(d)The Rambam (see Tosfos Yom-Tov) interprets the Chidush in connection with the vessel that holds the flour, the Ketores ... . According to him, R. Akiva is coming to add - that the vessel on which the flour, the Ketores ... are lying, combines all their particles, even though it is not a receptacle.

4)

(a)R. Yehudah ben Bava and R. Yehudah ha'Kohen testified that a Ketanah bas Yisrael - who was married off by her mother or brother to a Kohen ...

(b)... is permitted to eat Terumah de'Rabanan ...

(c)... because in the previous Perek we learned that she is permitted to eat Terumah after the marriage has been consummated, so they needed to add that it is permitted immediately after the marriage.

5)

(a)R. Yossi ha'Kohen and R. Zecharyah ben ha'Katzav testified about a little girl 'she'Hurhenah be'Ashkelon' - (whom Nochrim held as a security against a loan [see also Tosfos Yom-Tov] in Ashkelon.

(b)The witnesses also testified - that she had neither secluded herself with her captors nor had she been intimate with them.

(c)The family's reaction to the first testimony was - to distance themselves from her (see Tiferes Yisrael & Tosfos Yom-Tov DH 've'Eidehah')

6)

(a)What did R. Yossi ha'Kohen and R. Zecharyah ben ha'Katzav testified, citing the Chachamim - that if they believed the witnesses that she was captured, they also had to believe them that she was Tahor; whereas if they were not willing to believe them that she was Tahor, they had no right to believe them that she was captured.

(b)If not for the witnesses' second testimony, she would have been forbidden to marry a Kohen. Bearing in mind that she was taken as a security for a debt - this is only because Ashkelon was ruled by Nochrim, and their laws prevailed.

(c)Consequently - the fact that she agreed to be taken as a security, and was not taken by force would not have made a difference.

7)

(a)R. Yehoshua and R. Yehudah (see Tosfos Yom-Tov) ben Beseira testified that an Almanas Isah is Kasher li'Kehunah.

1. 'Isah'is - a family into which a Safek Chalal married, and we are not sure whose husband he is.

2. ... 'Almanas Isah' refers to - each woman of that family whose husband died (see Tosfos Yom-Tov DH 'Almanas Isah').

(b)She is called by that name - because, like a dough that is a mixture of flour and water, the family is now mixed with S'feikos.

(c)R. Yehoshua and R. Yehudah ben Beseira permitted her to marry a Kohen - because she is a 'S'fek Sefeika'; firstly, her husband may not have been the Safek Chalal; secondly, even if he was, he may not have been a Chalal.

(d)When they concluded 'she'ha'Isah Kesheirah Letamei u'Letaher Lerachek u'Lekarev', they meant - that the family retain a Chezkas Kashrus, and that, just like other families, one is able to point out those who are Tamei, but most people are Tahor, so too, this family (see also Tosfos Yom-Tov).

8)

(a)Raban Shimon ben Gamliel disagreed with the above ruling - though he did concede that he trusted their testimony.

(b)Only he quoted Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai as having said that an Almanas Isah - forbade convening Beis-Din on this matter, since the Kohanim would accept a ruling forbidding Almanas Isah, but not permitting her.

(c)This stringent ruling is based - on the principle 'Ma'alah Asu be'Yuchsin' (which means that it is mid'Rabanan [see Tosfos Yom-Tov]).

(d)The Halachah - is like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, that Almanas Isah is forbidden to marry a Kohen Lechatchilah, but permitted to remain with him, if she did.

9)

(a)R. Yossi ben Yo'ezer Ish Tzereida gave three testimonies, the first about locusts, the second about liquids found in the slaughterhouse of the Beis-ha'Mikdash, the third, about Tum'as Meis. He testified that ...

1. ... the species of locusts known as 'Eil Kamtza' is Kasher (see Tosfos Yom-Tov).

2. ... liquids found in the slaughterhouse of the Beis-ha'Mikdash are Tahor.

(b)There are two interpretations of the latter ruling. Some say that the liquids are completely Tahor. According to others, they are not Metamei, though they themselves are subject to Tum'ah (see also Tosfos Yom-Tov).

(c)The first opinion holds - that Tum'as Mashkin is mid'Rabanan, the second - that it is d'Oraysa (in which case the Rabanan do not have the authority to negate it completely.

10)

(a)The third testimony reads 'u'de'Yikrav be'Misah Sharya', meaning - that only those who have definitely touched a Meis are Tamei, but not those who may have done.

(b)This ruling must be interpreted as a Kula - because of the title they gave R. Yossi ben Yo'ezer, which we will discuss shortly.

(c)So what R. Yossi ben Yo'ezer Ish Tzereida is really coming to teach us is - the principle 'Safek Tum'ah biReshus ha'Rabim, Tahor'.

11)

(a)We learn the previous ruling from Sotah - since the Torah teaches us there that Safek Tum'ah is Tamei, and Sotah, who requires S'tirah, can only occur in a R'shus ha'Yachid (see Tosfos Yom-Tov).

(b)What R. Yossi ben Yo'ezer is coming to teach us that - leniency is Halachah le'Ma'aseh, whereas up until that time they considered it 'Halachah ve'Ein Morin Kein' (see Tosfos Yom-Tov, end of Mishnah).

(c)They subsequently referred to him as 'Yossi Sharya' - (Yossi the permitter) ...

(d)... because he had permitted three things that until then, had been considered forbidden. In fact, anybody who permitted three things in this manner received that title.

12)

(a)R. Akiva testified in the name of Nechemyah Ish Beis D'li (see Tosfos Yom-Tov) - that one may permit a woman to remarry a via the testimony of one witness ...

(b)... in a case where her husband went abroad and the witness testifies that he is dead.

13)

(a)R. Yehoshua testified about bones of a Meis that were found in the Dir ha'Eitzim - (a large room on the north-eastern corner of the Ezras Nashim, in which all the wood for the Mizbe'ach was stored).

(b)He testified in the name of the Chachamim - that one should remove the bones one by one (see Tosfos Yom-Tov), and that everything in the room remained Tahor ...

(c)... because - bearing in mind that the Ezras Nashim has the Din of a R'shus ha'Rabim, he applied the principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor'.

14)

(a)His contemporaries (cited in the Maseches Zevachim) initially wanted to declare the whole of Yerushalayim Tamei on account of those bones ...

(b)... but R. Yehoshua retorted - that it would be a shame to declare Tum'ah on the city of our fathers.

15)

(a)R. Eliezer heard that, prior to the actual construction, those who built the Heichal and the Azaros (in the time of Ezra [see Tosfos Yom-Tov]), put up - (temporary) curtains around the respective areas (see Tiferes Yisrael) ...

(b)... only they built the former from outside the curtains (see Tosfos Yom-Tov), and the latter, from the inside.

16)

(a)R. Yehoshua heard that nowadays ...

1. ... one is permitted to bring Korbanos even though there is no Beis-ha'Mikdash.

2. ... the Kohanim are permitted to eat Kodshei Kodshim - even though there are no curtains.

3. ... one may eat Kodshim Kalim and Ma'aser Sheini in Yerushalayim even if there is no wall ...

(b)... based on the principle that the original Kedushah of the Beis-ha'Mikdash and of Yerushalayim (placed on them by Sh'lomoh ha'Melech) was eternal (see Tosfos Yom-Tov DH 'u'Ma'aser Sheini').

(c)The Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael, on the other - only lasted until the destruction of the first Beis-ha'Mikdash ...

(d)... and it was the Kedushah of the Olei Bavel (at the hand of Ezra) that was eternal (see Tosfos Yom-Tov).

17)

(a)R. Yehoshua cited his Rebbe - (Raban Yochanan ben Zakai), who had a Kabbalah Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.

(b)R. Yochanan ben Zakai received it - his Rebbe, who received it in turn, from his Rebbe.

18)

(a)What Hash-m showed Moshe on Har Sinai was - all the future generations, and their leaders (see Tosfos Yom-Tov).

(b)When it came to the generation of Eliyahu ha'Navi, He showed him that Eliyahu will not come to be ...

1. ... Metamei and Metaher - (i.e. to change any Dinim in the Torah).

2. ... Merachek and Mekarev - (i.e. to distance those who are currently known to be Kasher, and to declare Kasher those who are known to be Pasul -see also Tosfos Yom-Tov]).

(c)The former ruling ('Merachek') is based on the 'Halachah' 'Mishpachah she'Nitma'ah, Nitma'ah' (any family of Safek Yichus that became absorbed in a family that is Kasher, is considered part of that family).

(d)According to the Tana Kama, whom Eliyahu will ...

1. ... distance - those who were brought close by force.

2. ... bring close - those who were distanced by force.

19)

(a)The Mishnah cites ...

1. ... the family of Beis Tzerifah, who lived on the east bank of the Jordan - as an example of a family that was distanced by force, and ...

2. ... another family who lived in the same location - as an example of of a family that was brought close by force.

(b)The Tana gives the name of the former family, but not the latter - to teach us how careful one needs to be about speaking ill of others, and to cover up their faults (see Tosfos Yom-Tov DH 've'Od Acheres').

(c)The name of the person who did that was - ben Tzi'on.

(d)The reason for the distinction between the two sets of the above groups is - because whereas the true status of the former has already been forgotten, the status of the latter has not, in which case the 'Halachah' is not applicable, and Eliyahu will have to re-place them into their correct group.

20)

(a)R. Yehudah disagrees with the Tana Kama in the previous dual ruling - with regard to distancing. Acording to him, Eliyahu will only come to bring close, but not to distance.

(b)According to R. Shimon, Eliyahu will come 'Le'hashvos ha'Machlokes'(to settle the disputes among the Chachamim [see Likutim]). The Chachamim maintain - that he will come to make peace in the world ...

(c)... as the Pasuk says in Mal'achi "Behold I will send Eliyah ha'Navi ... and he will return the hearts of the fathers on to the sons and the hearts of the sons on to the fathers.

(d)Although the Tana Kama explains "Avos" & "Banim" literally, with reference to fathers and their offspring (with regard to Yuchsin, as we explained), according to ...

1. ... R. Shimon, they refer to - the Chachamim and their Talmidim, respectively (see Tosfos Yom-Tov); whereas, according to ...

2. ... the Chachamim, they refer to the leaders and those who are under their jurisdiction (see also Tosfos Yom-Tov).