Question: This is obvious! Since she is confused about her count from the time the garment was laundered, and she does not know when she saw, if so, she can count seven days and immerse only from the day that she found the Kesem!

Answer: We discuss when she saw one or two days after finding the Kesem. The Chidush is that she does not count from the day she found the Kesem, rather, from the day she saw, for I can say that [the Kesem] was not from her body, rather, from elsewhere (so her seven days of Nidah begin only from her sighting).

Question: It should list this among the latter stringencies! We say there (Chagigah 21b) that the first five [stringencies] have Drara (grounds) of Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, so they apply both to Kodesh and Chulin Al Taharas ha'Kodesh;

The latter [five stringencies], which have no Drara of Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, apply [only] to Kodesh.

Explanation: "They have Drara of Tum'ah mid'Oraisa" means that they pertain to a Tum'ah that applies to Chulin mid'Oraisa. However, the latter [stringencies] do not pertain at all to a Tum'ah mid'Oraisa that applies to Chulin.

Suggestion: Perhaps the Reisha teaches Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, and the Seifa teaches Tum'ah mid'Rabanan!

Rejection: It teaches among the first [stringencies] that garments of people who eat Terumah are Midras (considered Tamei) to people who eat Kodesh, which is mid'Rabanan. Also, it teaches among the latter Tziruf (all the contents of a Kli are considered like one) and a Revi'i (fourth level Tum'ah) for Kodesh, which are mid'Oraisa.

Answer: Me'Es la'Es does not have even Drara of Tum'ah mid'Rabanan.

Question: Me'Es la'Es is Tamei even regarding Chulin Al Taharas ha'Kodesh, like it says below (6b) that Rav Shmuel b'Ribi Yitzchak accepted [Rav Nachman's question from a Beraisa, and established it to discuss] Chulin Al Taharas ha'Kodesh;

The latter [stringencies] do not apply to Chulin Al Taharas ha'Kodesh, and they have more Drara of Tum'ah, like I explained!

Answer: It is somewhat normal that the blood is uprooted (leaves the Makor) before she sees. Therefore, Rabanan decreed even about Chulin Al Taharas ha'Kodesh, and even for Terumah, according to the other version;

In any case, there is no Drara of Tum'ah, for at the time she was engaged in Taharos, there is no Safek Tum'ah. She need not refrain from engaging in Taharos, for she does not know when she will see afterwards.

Question: Why don't we ask from our Mishnah, that she is Metamei me'Es la'Es, and say "isn't this both for Kodesh and Terumah"?

Answer: We ask from here because [the Beraisa] was thorough to explain food and drink. It should have explained also "of Kodesh" (if it applies only to Kodesh).

Question: Why don't we bring a proof from the Beraisa below (53b) that she is Metamei herself and Kodshim retroactively? This implies Kodshim, but not Terumah. This is difficult for the version that says even for Terumah!

Answer: It mentioned there Kodshim because R. Shimon ben Elazar argues there even about Kodshim.

Explanation: This does not mean a total Bedikah, for a Bedikah is in holes and cracks, like it says below (14b), which is more than Shi'ur Veses. Rather, she cleaned herself.

Implied question: We could have said that it was a real Bedikah to be Toleh, for even after this time, it is a Safek mid'Oraisa for which we obligate below (14b) an Asham Taluy;

Even the one who exempts, this is because he requires for Asham Taluy one piece among two pieces (we know that Isur was there, just we are unsure whether the person chanced upon the Isur or the Heter), but he considers it a Safek mid'Oraisa!

Answer: He prefers to mention [checking within] Shi'ur Veses, and to burn.

Comment: This is even in Reshus ha'Rabim, for in our Sugya of the Prozdor, it is proven that there is no difference between Reshus ha'Rabim and Reshus ha'Yachid for Tum'ah that comes from her body;

However, afterwards, even though it is a Safek mid'Oraisa, we do not burn, like it says in our Sugya of the Prozdor, and below (60b) we say that whenever her husband brings Asham Taluy, his Taharos are Teluyos;

Whenever her husband brings a Chatas, his Taharos are Temei'os, and some say that whenever her husband brings a Chatas, his Taharos are Teluyos, but they are not Temei'os.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is in famine years.

Rebuttal: He was not precise, for below (9b) it says that even Rabanan agree about famine years.

Explanation #2: "In pressed circumstances" means that a person touched me'Es la'Es of a Nidah and made some Taharos before she saw, and after [Rebbi's mistaken] ruling he engaged in much Taharos;

This is unlike famine years, since beforehand it was not Sha'as ha'Dechak, and he engaged in much Taharos through a mistaken ruling.

Explanation #3: "In pressed circumstances" means that the one who asked went away, and it would be a great exertion to pursue after him, like it says in Kesuvos (60b) "[Abaye] ran after him three Mil in sand [to retract a mistaken ruling], and did not catch him."

Implied question: The bread is not Kadosh until it forms a crust in the oven and the Korban [Todah] is slaughtered for it (Menachos 78b)!

Answer: In any case it is called Terumah because they designated it to call it Terumah after baking and Shechitah of the Korban;

It was separated during the kneading, and not after baking, because while it is dough one can make it thick and nice.

Assertion: It seems that also Kedushas ha'Peh is on it (his verbal declaration took effect), and one may not change it for other loaves;

Source: It connotes like this in Nedarim (12a). [If one said "this loaf is forbidden] like Chalah of Aharon (i.e. Kohanim) or his Terumah", it is permitted. (This is Davar ha'Asur, for the Torah forbids it to Zarim. A Neder must be Matfis (forbid something like) Davar ha'Nadur, something forbidden due to a vow.)

We infer there that [had he said] "like Terumah of Lachmei Todah", it would be forbidden, and we establish it when he separated them during the kneading.

Inference: Since a loaf that he was Matfis in Lachmei Todah is forbidden, this implies that it has Kedushas ha'Peh while it is still a dough.

Explanation #1 (Rashbam): This refers to R. Gamliel ha'Zaken, for we say in Shabbos (15a) that Hillel, Shimon, R. Gamliel and Shimon were Nesi'im for [the last] 100 years of the [second] Beis ha'Mikdash.

Question: He is not normally called Stam R. Gamliel, rather, R. Gamliel ha'Zaken!

Explanation #2: Here we could discuss R. Gamliel (Stam, the grandson of R. Gamliel ha'Zaken, who was Nasi when the Sanhedrin moved to) Yavneh, who was the colleague of R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua.

Explanation: If there arose for it a Safek Tum'ah that applies even to Chulin before kneading, one may cause it to become Vadai Tamei;

We do not forbid due to "Mishmeres Terumosai", for before kneading, there is not yet any connection to Chalah (it is totally Chulin), like [we find that] if one separated flour to be Chalah, it has no effect.

Also, there is no loss to the Kohen, since a Safek Tum'ah already arose (so in any case, the Kohen cannot eat the Chalah).

Explanation (cont.): "After kneading, it must be processed in Taharah." I.e. if after kneading arose a Safek Tum'ah that does not apply to Chulin, only to Chalah, it must be processed in Taharah;

Even though the Chalah is Teluyah and there is no loss to the Kohen (if it becomes Vadai Tamei), one may not cause it to become [Vadai] Tamei, due to "Mishmeres Terumosai."

Implied question: The same applies even if arose a Safek Tum'ah that applies even to Chulin! One may not cause it to become [Vadai] Tamei!

Answer: The Beraisa explains which Safek they discussed, i.e. Safek Chalah, i.e. even a Safek Tum'ah that does not apply to Chulin, the Chalah is Teluyah. It teaches that Chulin that is Tevel to Chalah (one must separate Chalah from it) is like Chalah.

Suggestion: Also the Reisha, in which a Safek Tum'ah arose before kneading, also discusses Safek Chalah, i.e. a Tum'ah that does not apply to Chulin;

Even though it is totally Tahor, one may make it Vadai Tamei, for before kneading it is not yet called Tevel to Chalah, and it is not forbidden due to "Mishmeres Terumosai."

Also, there is no loss to the Kohen, for he can separate [Tahor Chalah] to exempt it from elsewhere!

Rejection: It is unreasonable to call it Safek Tum'ah before kneading, since it is totally Tahor.

Question: It says in Avodah Zarah (56a) that one may not harvest grapes with a Yisrael who processes his Peros in Tum'ah (even though now it is totally Chulin)!

Answer #1: In one Perush, Rashi explained that it is forbidden to cause Tum'ah to Terumah, due to "Mishmeres Terumosai".

Question: There is no Chiyuv to tithe until one removes the pits and peels, or takes the wine from the pit [to bottle it]. Here we say that before kneading, one may process it in Tum'ah!

Answer: There, if he separated [Terumah] even before removing the pits and peels, or taking the wine from the pit, it is Terumah, just like one who [separated Terumah] while the grain was detached sheaves;

However, here, if he separated Chalah before kneading, this is like one who separated flour for Chalah. It says in Kidushin (46b) that it has no effect. Therefore, it is not called Tevulah to Chalah.

Comment - Question: Rashi's Perush is difficult, for the Tosefta in Chalah concludes "and similarly, Peros - before final processing, one may process them in Tum'ah. After final processing, one must process them in Taharah!"

Answer #2: There, it is not forbidden due to "Mishmeres Terumosai", like Rashi explained, since there was not yet a Chiyuv to take Terumah. Rather, it is due to a loss to the Kohen;

However, here a Safek already arose, and there is no loss to the Kohen.