(Rav): She may be Toleh only on an (adult) Nochris who already saw Dam Nidah.

Question: What is his source?

Answer: Presumably, the case of a Nochris is like a Nidah (with which it is taught), i.e. she already saw.

Objection (Rav Sheshes): Rav must have been sleeping when he said that!

(Beraisa #1): She may be Toleh on a Nochris;

R. Meir says, she may be Toleh (only) on a Nochris old enough (that it is common for her) to see Dam Nidah.

Even R. Meir requires only that she is old enough to see, but not that she actually saw!

Answer (Rava): You understand that R. Meir is more stringent than Chachamim. He is more lenient! (Rav holds like Chachamim.)

Contradiction (Beraisa #2): She may not be Toleh on a Nochris;

R. Meir says, she may be Toleh.

Resolution (Rava): Beraisa #1 means that (Chachamim say that) she may be Toleh on a Nochris who has seen;

R. Meir says, she may be Toleh on a Nochris old enough to see, even if she did not see.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): A (Tahor) woman may be Toleh on a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom on the day after she saw, or on a Zavah counting seven clean days who did not immerse yet. (Rashi - we are Toleh on the one more prone to see. Rashba - we are Toleh on the Teme'ah, for she will not lose). Therefore, the Tehorah remains Tehorah, and the other woman is Mekulkeles (in Safek).)

Rebbi says, she may not be Toleh. Therefore, both women are Mekulkalos.

All agree that she may be Toleh on a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom on the day she saw, or on a woman during Yemei Tohar, or on a Besulah (who just got married. Her blood (Dam Besulim) is Tahor).

Question: Why did R. Shimon ben Gamliel say "therefore, (she remains Tehorah... )"? (This follows from what he already said!)

Answer: This is for parallel structure with Rebbi (who said "therefore... ").

Question: Why did Rebbi says "therefore... "?

Answer: One might have thought that the one who found the Kesem is Mekulkeles, but not the lender. He teaches that this is not so.

(Rav Chisda): Rebbi and R. Shimon ben Gamliel would argue also about a Tahor and a Tamei who walked on two paths. (One path has Tum'ah underneath that is Metamei anyone who traverses the path. We do not know which path each traversed.)

Objection (Rav Ada): Rebbi is Metamei both women only when they are similar. (I.e. the Teme'ah may immerse now if she wants, i.e. a Shomeres Yom on day two or a Zavah on her seventh clean day. It is as if both are Tehoros);

Here, the Tamei does not lose if we are Toleh that he walked on the Tamei path! (Tosfos - he had not received Haza'as Mei Chatas on days three and seven. Since he was not ready to immerse, it is not considered a loss. Tosfos ha'Rosh - normally, we are Metaher each man due to Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim. We are Toleh on the Tamei only if both men ask Beis Din together, for then we cannot be Metaher both of them.)

Answer: Rav Chisda holds that also the women are not so similar. The Shomeres Yom is not Tehorah until she immerses.

(R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): If a Tahor and one who was Tamei or Taluy (Safek Tamei) walked on the two paths, all agree that we are Toleh that the Tahor walked on the Tahor path, and the Tamei or Taluy on the Tamei path.

Question (R. Yochanan): May a Tehorah be Toleh a Kesem on (a woman who is Tamei mid'Rabanan because she found) a Kesem?

He does not ask according to Rebbi. (In some cases) Rebbi does not allow Teliyah on a woman who properly saw blood, and all the more so not on one who only found a Kesem!

The question is according to R. Shimon ben Gamliel. He is Toleh on women who properly saw blood. He would not be Toleh on one who only found a Kesem;

Or, perhaps there is no distinction!

Answer (R. Yehudah bar Livai): She may not be Toleh.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: This is because she may not be Toleh. (Perhaps the other woman did not see blood, and her Kesem came from elsewhere. Aruch - we have a tradition about this.)

Question (Beraisa): One may not Toleh a Kesem on a Kesem;

If Rachel lent a garment to a Nochris or a woman (Leah) "sitting" on (conducting like a Safek Teme'ah due to) a Kesem, and found a Kesem on it later, she is Toleh (the Kesem on the borrower. Ramban - since blood is not Metamei the borrower, she does not pay attention to Hargashos.)

Question: The Beraisa contradicts itself! First it says that one may not be Toleh a Kesem on a Kesem, and then it says that one may!

Answer #1: The Reisha is Rebbi, and the Seifa is R. Shimon ben Gamliel. (Answers 1 through 3 are all difficult for R. Yehudah bar Livai, who said that even R. Shimon ben Gamliel is not Toleh.)

Answer #2: The entire Beraisa is Rebbi. In the Seifa, Leah found a Kesem that same day. (We are Toleh on her, for it does not affect her at all.) In the Reisha, she found a Kesem the previous day. (We are not Toleh, for it would force Leah to wait another day before immersing. We retract from premise (a:1) that Rebbi would never be Toleh on a Kesem.)

Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): The entire Beraisa is R. Shimon ben Gamliel;

Version #1 (Tosfos): In the Seifa, Leah found a Kesem before she and Rachel wore the borrowed garment. In the Reisha she found a Kesem after they wore it (and a Kesem was found in it).

Version #2 (Rashi): The Seifa discusses retroactive Tum'ah (regarding Taharos touched from when she wore the garment. We are Toleh on Leah, for she was Teme'ah anyway due to her Kesem). The Reisha discusses Tum'ah from now and onwards. (We are not Toleh, for it would delay Leah's immersion). (end of Version #2)

Summation of question: All of these answers refute R. Yehudah bar Livai!

Version #1 (Rashi) Answer (and Answer #4 to Question e:2 - Ravina): It means that if Rachel lent a garment to a Nochris (who properly saw blood), the one who found the Kesem (Rachel) may be Toleh on her.

Version #2 (Rashba) Answer (and Answer #4 - Ravina): It means, if she lent a garment to a Nochris who found a Kesem, she may be Toleh on her. (end of Version #2)

Question: The Beraisa says 'or one sitting on a Kesem'! (This connotes that the Kesem was Metamei her.)

Answer: It (Rashba - Ravina) means, if she lent a garment to a Nochris or a woman "sitting" amidst Yemei Tohar, the one who found the Kesem may be Toleh on her.

(Mishnah - R. Nechemyah): If they sat... (Kesamim apply only to things that are Mekabel Tum'ah).

(Rav Masnah): He learns from "v'Nikasah la'Aretz Teshev" -- once she sits on the ground, she is clear (of Kesamim).

(Rav Huna): R. Nechemyah is Metaher even a Kesem found on the back of a Kli Cheres.

Objection: This is obvious! (Klei Cheres are not Mekabel Tum'ah from the back.)

Answer: One might have thought that he decrees Tum'ah due to a Kesem found inside. Rav Huna teaches that this is not so.

(Abaye): R. Nechemyah is Metaher a Kesem found on a rag less than three by three (fingerbreadths), for it is not useful for rich or poor (even though it can be Mekabel Tum'ah through designation).

(Rav Chiya bar Rav Masnah citing Rav): The Halachah follows R. Nechemyah.

Objection (Rav Nachman): My father taught that a case occurred and Chachamim were Metamei (unlike R. Nechemyah). Surely, this is the Halachah!

(Beraisa): If two women were grinding with a hand grinder, and blood was found under the one further inside or in between them, both are Teme'os;

If blood was found under the outer woman, she is Teme'ah, and the other is Tehorah.

A case occurred in which blood was found on the edge of the bathtub and on an olive leaf. Chachamim were Metamei (the women involved, even though a leaf is not Mekabel Tum'ah).

Answer: Tana'im argue about this. (Another Tana says that a case occurred and Chachamim were Metaher, like R. Nechemyah):

(Beraisa - R. Yakov): (If a woman found a Kesem on something that is not Mekabel Tum'ah,) she is Teme'ah;

R. Nechemyah is Metaher;

(A case occurred, and) Chachamim ruled like R. Nechemyah.

(Mishnah): If three women slept in a bed and blood was found under one of them, all of them are Teme'os;

If Leah checked and found that she is Teme'ah, the others are Tehoros;

The women may be Toleh on each other.

If they were not fit to see blood, we consider them to be fit to see.

(Gemara - Rav Yehudah): (The others are Tehoros) only if Leah checked herself within Shi'ur Veses. (She was holding an Ed and wiped herself immediately after the blood was found.)

He holds like Bar Pada, who says that whenever there is a Chiyuv Chatas for Bi'ah (she found blood within Shi'ur Veses afterwards), in a corresponding case of Taharos (that she touched), they are (fully) Teme'os. (We burn them);

Whenever there is a Chiyuv Asham Taluy (i.e. she found blood after Shi'ur Veses but within the time it takes to descend from the bed and clean herself), Taharos are Teluyos (Safek Teme'os. We neither eat nor burn them);

Whenever there is no Chiyuv for Bi'ah (she found blood after the longer Shi'ur), Taharos are Tehoros.

(R. Oshaya): Even when there is a Chiyuv Chatas, Taharos are Teluyos:

Presumably, the blood already left the Makor during Bi'ah, but it could not leave (her body) until the Ever left (therefore, they bring Chata'os). However, regarding a woman who touched Taharos, nothing holds in the blood. (Presumably, it left the Makor just before it was found. It is a mere stringency mid'Rabanan that Taharos she touched up to 24 hours ago are Teluyos.)

R. Yirmeyah: The following is a parable for R. Oshaya's reasoning. A child and an elder walked together on the road. The child would wait for the elder;

Once they reached the city, the child rushed to his house. (Likewise, when blood is not blocked by the Ever, it leaves right away.)

Abaye: The following is a parable for R. Oshaya's reasoning. If one sticks a finger in an eye, it does not tear until the finger is removed, but then it tears quickly.

(Mishnah): The women may be Toleh on each other.

(Beraisa): The women may be Toleh on each other in the following cases:

If one woman was pregnant, nursing, old (missed three periods) or Besulah (i.e. has not yet seen Dam Nidah. Normally, all of these do not see blood), and the other woman was "regular," the former may Toleh on the latter.

If both women were pregnant, nursing, old or Besulah, both are Teme'os;

This is the Chidush of the Seifa (of the Mishnah). If both of them were not fit to see blood, we consider them to be fit to see.