1)

(a)When Shamai says 'Kol ha'Nashim Dayan Sha'atan', he means - that we will declare Tamei the T'rumah and the Taharos that she handled only from that moment on (and not retroactively).

(b)According to Hillel - all the T'rumos and Taharos that she handled since the previous time that she examined herself are Tamei, no matter how long ago that was.

(c)The reason for this is - because we are afraid that maybe the blood appeared in the outer section of the womb immediately after the previous examination, only the walls of the womb prevented it from emerging.

(d)Shamai on the other hand, holds - that the walls of the womb do not prevent the blood from emerging.

2)

(a)The Chachamim disagree with both previous opinions - because, they maintain, Shamai is too lenient, and Hillel is too strict.

(b)They therefore hold - that Me'es Le'es (twenty-four hours) and mi'Pekidah li'Pekidah (from one examination to the next), both detract from one another.

(c)When they say that ...

1. ... Me'es Le'es detracts from Pekidah li'Pekidah', they mean - that if she examined herself more than twenty-four hours earlier, then we only declare her Tamei from the beginning of the twenty-four-hour period.

2. ... 'Pekidah li'Pekidah detracts from Me'es Le'es', they mean - that if she examined herself within twenty-four hours, then she is Tamei from the time that she examined herself.

(d)A 'Veses' is - a fixed period.

(e)The Tana rules that a woman who ...

1. ... has a Veses and who sees blood at the time that the Veses is due - is only Tamei from the time that she sees (even according to Hillel).

2. ... has relations with her husband using a cloth (both before and after Tashmish) - detracts from both Pekidah li'Pekidah and Me'es Le'es.

3)

(a)The example the Tana gives of 'Dayah Sha'atah' is - where a woman is dealing with Taharos when she sees blood, and who is Tamei immediately, though the Taharos remain Tahor.

(b)And when the Tana concludes (with reference to a woman who does not have a fixed period) that she only counts from the time that she sees, he means - that even though she is Tamei retroactively from Me'es Le'es (as we explained), she only begins to count seven days of Tum'ah from the time that she sees.

4)

(a)We ascribe Shamai's lenient ruling to - the principle of Chazakah ('Ha'amed Ishah al Chezkasah' [meaning that since she was definitely Tahor beforehand, if a doubt arises whether she was Tamei at a certain time, we establish her on her Chezkas Taharah).

(b)Hillel disagrees with that - on the basis of the fact that he does not consider a Chezkas ha'Guf that is destined to change (such as a woman who is Tahor) is not considered a Chazakah.

(c)We cannot support Beis Shamai from the Din of a case where one has a Safek whether one touched a Sheretz in the R'shus ha'Rabim or not (who is Tahor) - because Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim Tahor', is 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' (and is therefore confined to the area of Halachah in which it was given).

5)

(a)We query both Shamai and Hillel however, from a Mishnah in Mikva'os, which rules in a case where a Mikvah is measured and is found to be short of forty Sa'ah - that all the Taharos that were performed using vessels that were Toveled in it are Tamei (even if the Mikvah is in the R'shus ha'Rabim).

(b)The Kashya on Shamai is obvious. The Kashya on Hillel is - seeing as the Mishnah in Mikva'os clearly considers the Taharos there Vaday Tamei retroactively, why he rules that 'Me'es Le'es she'be'Nidah' is only Safek Tamei (one may not eat the T'rumah that she dealt with on the one hand, whilst on the other, one does not burn it), as we shall see in a Beraisa later), and not Vaday?

(c)We refute ...

1. ... the initial answer (that it is different there, because we place the person who Toveled in the Mikvah on his Chezkas Tum'ah) - by countering that on the contrary, the Mikvah has a Chezkas Kashrus.

2. ... the counter argument that, on the contrary, we ought to place the Mikvah on its Chezkas Kashrus - by countering that since it is Pasul before our very eyes, it is not possible to give it a Chezkas Kashrus.

(d)We reject this argument however, on the grounds - that for exactly the same reason, we ought not to go by the Chezkas Kashrus either in our case of Nidah, either.

6)

(a)We reject the suggestion that even though there has been a sighting of blood, we can still say that it only happened now - on the grounds that in that case, why do we not use the same argument regarding a Mikvah?

(b)We continue to suggest however, that a Mikvah is worse that Nidah - on the technical grounds that, unlike Nidah, where the blood flows out in one go, the water in the Mikvah drips out bit by bit (in which case the S'vara to say that it happened now is less likely than by Nidah).

(c)We reject this answer too however, due to the argument 'Dilma Hagas Hagas Chaziteih' - which means that by Nidah too, it is possible that the blood first accumulates inside the womb, before dripping into the outer section of the womb drop by drop.

(d)We finally answer that the case in Mikva'os is worse because there are two flaws - a. the person or object that Toveled there has a Chezkas Tum'ah, and b. the Mikveh is lacking in front of our eyes; whereas by Nidah, the second flaw is applicable, but not the first.

7)

(a)We query Shamai from a Beraisa in connection with someone who examines a barrel of wine in order to separate T'rumah from it in the course of time, on to other barrels - by drinking from the fresh barrel whilstlooking at the barrel currently under discussion and designating T'rumah, which he will later separate (since T'rumah can be designated with Machshavah alone).

(b)The point of the examination is - to determine whether the wine is sour, in which case one cannot separate T'rumah to cover wine (according to Rebbi, who considers wine and vinegar as two species).

(c)In a case where the wine later turned sour the Tana rules - that the first three days (either immediately after the examination or immediately prior to the discovery) it is Vaday (wine according to the first explanation, and vinegar, according to the second), beyond that, it is a Safek.

(d)This ...

1. ... poses a Kashya on Shamai in that - according to him, we ought to apply the S'vara 'Dayo Sha'ato', and consider the 'Safek' to be wine, up until it is discovered to be vinegar (or vice-versa).

2. ... does not pose a Kashya on Hillel - inasmuch as (apart from the three days) it is a Safek, just like he says.

8)

(a)After following the same Shakla ve'Tarya (series of questions and answers), we conclude - (like we did in the case of Mikvah), that 'Chavis' is worse than Nidah, since there are two flaws in the Chazakah of wine (Chezkas Tevel and 'Harei Chometz Lefanecha').

(b)The problem still remains however - why 'Chavis' is a Safek Tevel, whereas 'Mikvah' is Vaday Tamei.

(c)Rebbi Chanina from Sura answers that the author of 'Chavis' is Rebbi Shimon of a Beraisa which discusses a Mikvah that is measured and is found to be lacking, and where the Tana Kama rules that all Taharos that were performed relying on it are Tamei - irrespective of whether the Safek occurred in the R'shus ha'Yachid or even in the R'shus ha'Rabim.

(d)Rebbi Shimon maintains that all the cases of Safek Taharos that occurred ...

1. ... in the R'shus ha'Rabim - all the Taharos that were performed relying on it are Tahor, whereas ...

2. ... in the R'shus ha'Yachid - they are Safek Tamei.