Question: The Ri was unsure if a person with a light Tum'ah, e.g. she counted part [of the seven clean days] or all, but did not immerse, attributes to one who did not count at all, both regarding Nidah, and a Tamei Mes regarding people who walked on two paths;

[He was unsure, for] our Sugya discusses only a Tahor and a Tamei.

Implied question: We should infer from the fact that the Mishnah did not say "R. Meir and R. Shimon are Metamei" [that R. Shimon is Metaher]!

Answer: We cannot resolve from there, for according to R. Yochanan, R. Meir is Metaher a Sefek-Sefeka. (Therefore, even if R. Shimon is Metamei, we could not say that both are Metamei.)

Implied question: We could resolve from the Reisha, from the fact that the Mishnah did not say "R. Meir and R. Shimon say, if she stands she is Temei'ah, and if she sits she is Tehorah"!

Answer: We brought a better proof from a Beraisa.

Suggestion: This "Tamei" discusses a Tamei who counted and sprinkled [with Mei Chatas on days three and seven], but he did not immerse.

Rejection: Rav Ada said "there, they are the same. Here, what difference does it make to him?" This implies that it is unlike the argument above (of R. Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi, about a woman who is ready to immerse).

Suggestion: It discusses a Tamei who did not count at all.

Rejection: Even Rebbi admits that he attributes, like it says "and they agree..." Why did Rav Chisda say "the same argument applies here"?

Explanation: Rather, we discuss a Tamei who counted part [of the seven days]. Rav Chisda holds that even if she counted part, she does not attribute to her. Rav Ada, who said "what difference does it make to him?", does not consider it a loss, since he does not cancel everything.

Implied question: Why did [the Tana'im] discuss a woman who counted seven days and did not immerse? [They argue even about one who counted part!]

Answer: This is for a Chidush according to R. Shimon ben Gamliel. Even so, [the Tahor] attributes to her.

Question: Why didn't Rav Chisda teach about a Zavah herself, and teach that a Zavah who counted part [of the seven days], the same argument applies to her?

Answer: He prefers to teach that even regarding two paths, he is Metamei, even though it is Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim.

Question: If so, what is the connection of Kesamim to paths? Even though in both of them, Chezkas Taharah was weakened a little, there is more reason to be Metaher regarding paths, due to Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim!

Answer: Also regarding a Kesem, we can say that her Chazakah is not weakened at all, for we should attribute to her friend, just like [one who passed through] a butcher's market;

Even so, according to Rebbi she does not attribute, because one is no different than the other, since both are Tehorim, since she already counted seven days;

Also here, why do you attribute to a Tamei who counted part more than one who is totally Tahor? Even though he has Chezkas Taharah, it looks ridiculous!

For this reason we are Metamei two Tehorim who walked on two paths and came to ask together. According to letter of the law, they are Tehorim, but we are Metamei them, lest it look ridiculous.

Implied question: These are different! There, if we are Metaher both of them, it looks ridiculous, for it is impossible that both of them are Tehorim. However, here it is possible that the Tahor went on the Tahor path!

Answer: Even so, it looks ridiculous. Why do we attribute to the Tamei more than to the Tahor, like it says above about women?

Question: Why is this unlike two boxes [of Terumah and Chulin, and a Se'ah of Terumah fell in one, and a Se'ah of Chulin fell in the other, and we do not know which fell in which]. We say that the Chulin fell into the Chulin!

Answer: There, there is no loss to the other [box] through this assumption. Also here, even Rebbi admits that we attribute to a total Nidah who did not immerse at all.

Suggestion (Ri): He asks to attribute to one who counted seven days and did not immerse, but [if she is] on the first day, obviously she attributes!

Rejection #1 (Ri): If so, why does it say below "in any case, it is difficult"? We can answer, both according to Rebbi, and according to R. Shimon ben Gamliel. The Beraisa discusses the first day!

Rejection: #2: Also according to Rebbi, we should ask on the first day, since she did not see from her body!

Conclusion: Rather, he asks even on her first day, and it is obvious to him that we do not attribute, even according to R. Shimon ben Gamliel, only if she saw from her body.

Support: Now, according to all answers, it is difficult for R. Yehudah bar Livai.

Implied question: It answers "both of them are Rebbi. This is on her first day, and this is on her second!"

Answer: The Gemara endeavors to answer in every way it can answer;

This is not according to R. Yochanan, for he said that according to Rebbi, there is no question, and we established his question even on her first day, and [R. Yochanan] said that since when she saw from her body, we do not attribute on her second day according to Rebbi, regarding a Kesem, we do not attribute even on her first day.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Retroactively she attributes, so she is not ruined through this, and she is not Tamei retroactively;

For the future she does not attribute to Ba'alas (the one who found) ha'Kesem on her second day, for this harms her. Why should we ruin her (create a Safek about when she may immerse) more than the other woman?!

Objection: This is astounding, to attribute the Kesem to her half-way (only retroactively)!

Explanation #2 (Ri): "Retroactively" means that Ba'alas ha'Kesem found it, and afterwards she and her friend wore the robe and a Kesem was found on it. She attributes to her, since she already recognized her Tum'ah before the Safek came to both of them;

Here is afterwards - both of them wore the robe and a Kesem was found on it. And it is not known from whom, and afterwards [one] wore a robe and a Kesem was found on it;

Even though this one is Vadai Temei'ah through her Kesem, since it was not known until the Safek arose for her and her friend, she does not attribute.

Explanation #3: We can explain the Gemara's words oppositely. Retroactively she does not attribute, and for the future she attributes. "Retroactively" and "for the future" refer to lending the garment;

If the garment was lent retroactively, before Ba'alas ha'Kesem knew about her Kesem, for the future is when the garment, through which a Safek came to both of them, was lent after Ba'alas ha'Kesem found her Kesem. In this case she attributes. This is the same [as Explanation #2 regarding the Halachah and the reasoning, just the words are explained oppositely].

Observation: Here we do not ask "this is obvious!", like above, for in Zevachim (94a) it connotes that if he intended for [using] them and designated them, they receive Tum'ah.

Explanation: She did not truly do a Bedikah. Rather, she cleaned herself, like it says above (12a) that we do not find a Bedikah (in which the cloth must enter cracks in the walls inside) within Shi'ur Veses (the time needed for the Ever to leave, and for the Bedikah cloth to enter immediately).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He holds that there is no Tum'ah me'Es la'Es, like Shamai.

Explanation #2 (Rashi): This refers to one of the four women who are Dayan Shaitan.

Explanation #3: This refers to a woman who has a Veses.

Explanation #4: This refers to Chulin, which do not have Tum'ah me'Es la'Es.

Question: Since it can be that even though she found within Shi'ur Veses, that the blood was not there at the time of Bi'ah, why does her husband bring a Chatas? It is a Safek!

Answer: Since most times it comes before and during Bi'ah, we can attribute the delay to the Ever, and he is Tamei mid'Oraisa.

Explanation (Ri): We attribute only in this case that the Gemara says (one woman was pregnant, nursing, old or Besulah);

Distinction: However, if she has a Veses, [even though not at the time of her Veses] she is Mesulekes Damim, for we say that Dayah Shaitah, [even so,] she may not attribute to a woman who does not have a Veses.

Similarly, if she has a Veses, and the time of her Veses did not come, she may not attribute to a woman for whom the time of her Veses came.