1)

(a)When, in the Mishnah in Chalah currently under discussion, the Tana rules 'Chalaso Teluyah', he is not referring to a standard Safek - because that would be obvious.

(b)An example of a standard Safek would be - 'Sh'nei Shevilin (if the dough is taken along one of two paths, one of which is Tamei [because a corpse is buried beneath it lying across its width]).

(c)Based on a Mishnah in Zavin (in connection with a Zav and a Tahor who are unloading a donkey) - he is talking about where a Zav and a Tahor are loading or unloading from a donkey, as we shall now see.

2)

(a)The Mishnah in Zavin rules that if a Tahor is loading or unloading from a donkey together with a Zav, then, assuming that the load is ...

1. ... heavy - he becomes Tamei (because either the Tamei may have leaned on him [and he is Tamei because of Heset] or he leaned on the Zav [and he is Tamei because of Merkav]).

2. ... light - he remains Tahor.

(b)When the Tana states 've'Chulan Tehorin li'Venei ha'Keneses', it means - that Taharos of Chulin that are touched by the 'Tahor' (who is now a Safek Av he'Tum'ah) are permitted to the 'B'nei ha'Keneses' who eat their Chulin be'Taharah (even in the case of a heavy burden [see Tosfos DH 've'Chulan']) ...

(c)... because even Vaday would not be a proper Heset (though it is not clear why), how much more so now that it is only a Safek.

(d)And it is only T'rumah that he touched - that is considered Teluyah and is forbidden to Kohanim ...

(e)... mi'de'Rabbanan.

3)

(a)We query the current assumption that Chulin ha'Tevulin le'Chalah is considered Chalah, from a Beraisa, which discusses a T'vulas-Yom - (who is a Sheini le'Tum'ah and) who is kneading dough.

(b)The Tana permits her to separate Chalah from the dough - provided she does not declare the Chalah by name.

(c)The reason that she places the Chalah specifically on to a Kefishah or an Anchusa (Keilim that have no inside and which are not therefore subject to Tum'ah) is - to remind her not to touch it once she has declared it Chalah.

(d)Before declaring it Chalah - she must still place the K'li beside the dough (since it is a Mitzvah to separate Chalah from 'Mukaf' [meaning that whatever the Chalah will cover should be next to the dough from which the Chalah is being separated).

4)

(a)The T'vulas-Yom did not render the Chalah Tamei when she separated it and placed it in the K'li - because it was still Chulin, and there is no Shelishi by Chulin.

(b)The problem with this, according to our assumption that Chulin ha'Tevulin le'Chalah has a Din of Chalah is - that back comes the question that we asked earlier (why she did not then render the Chalah a Sh'lishi as soon as she separated it).

(c)We answer that the Chachamim only decreed on Chulin ha'Tevulin le'Chalah there where Vaday renders Chulin Tamei - but not by a T'vul-Yom, where it does not.

5)

(a)We query this from Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak (on the previous Amud) however, who precluded Chulin She'Na'asu al Taharas T'rumah from Me'es Le'es she'be'Nidah - even though a Vaday Nidah is Metamei Chulin (a Kashya on what we just said, since we are assuming that Chulin ha'Tevulin le'Chalah have the same Din as Chulin she'Na'asu al'Taharas T'rumah).

(b)To answer the Kashya, we differentiate between the two cases - based on the fact that, whereas Chulin ha'Tevulin le'Chalah actually contains Chalah, Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas T'rumah is pure Chulin. Consequently, the Chachamim did not extend their decree to it.

(c)Alternatively, we answer that, even assuming that there is no difference between Chulin ha'Tevulin le'Chalah and Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas T'rumah - the earlier case (of Me'es Le'es she'be'Nidah) is mi'de'Rabbanan, which explains why they were more lenient there.

6)

(a)We learned in the Mishnah 'Rebbi Eliezer Omer, Arba Nashim Dayan Sha'atan ... '. Rebbi Yehoshua heard this ruling from his Rebbes - with regard to a Besulah exclusively.

(b)He nevertheless agrees - that the Halachah is like Rebbi Eliezer.

(c)The Mishnah goes on to define ...

1. ... a Besulah - as any woman who has never sighted blood before (even if she is married).

2. ... a Me'uberes - as a woman whose pregnancy is visible.

3. ... a Menikah - as until the time that she weans the baby (at twenty-four months).

4. ... a Zekeinah - as three Onos before she reaches old age (which will be explained in the Sugya).

7)

(a)Rebbi Meir holds that if a Menikah gives her baby to a nurse - weans him prematurely, or if the baby dies, she reverts to the Din of Me'es Le'es.

(b)The Chachamim rule - that she retains the Din of Dayah Sha'atah up until twenty-four months, in all cases.

(c)Rebbi ...

1. ... Eliezer (or Rebbi Elazar) rules - that any woman who skips three Onos is subject to the Din of Dayah Sha'atah ...

2. ... and Rebbi Yossi says the same about a Me'uberes or a Menikah.

(d)The Din of Dayah Sha'atah regarding the four women - is confined to the first sighting. From the second sighting and onwards, she reverts to the Din of Me'es Le'es.

8)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that Rebbi Yehoshua only heard the ruling concerning Dayan Sha'atan with regard to a Besulah. Rebbi Eliezer commented on this - that it can be compared to someone who did and someone who did not, see the new moon on Rosh Chodesh - where we only ask the person who saw it (and subsequently rule by it), and not the one who did not.

(b)In spite of the fact that Rebbi Yehoshua ruled like Rebbi Eliezer, they insisted on following Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion as long as Rebbi Eliezer was alive - to discourage people from ruling like Rebbi Eliezer in other issues regarding Tum'ah, (where Rebbi Eliezer is lenient), at a time when, in deference to Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Yehoshua would be unable to object.

(c)And the reason that Rebbi Yehoshua reinstated the Halachah like Rebbi Eliezer after the latter's death was - because then, if people would begin to rule like Rebbi Eliezer in the other issues, he would have no qualms about stopping them.

(d)They did not rule like Rebbi Eliezer in all four cases - because he was a Shamuti (meaning that he was placed in Cherem, for not giving in to the majority [see also Tosfos DH 'Shamuti Hu']).

9)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel disagrees with the above. In his opinion - the Halachah is like Rebbi Eliezer in the remaining three cases too.

(b)The first of these cases concerns a Yoledes who gives birth during the period of Zivus immediately after seeing three consecutive days, in which case she is not a Zavah - because we then assume that the sightings were the result of the birth-pains, rather than a sign of Zivus.

(c)She would be considered a Yoledes be'Zov however (with the Chumros of both), in spite of the birth, if the pains stopped before she gave birth.

(d)Rebbi Eliezer explains - that she would have to be pain-free for twenty-four before the birth in order to be considered a Yoledes be'Zov.

10)

(a)The second case concerns a Zav or a Zavah who has just had three consecutive sightings, and who now requires seven clean days. Rebbi Eliezer rules that even though they only examined themselves on the first and seventh days - they are nevertheless Tahor.

(b)According to Rebbi Yehoshua, they only have two days (the first and the seventh) to their credit. Whereas Rebbi Akiva holds - that they only have the seventh day.

(c)Rebbi Akiva's reason is because if they had a sighting during the five middle days, it would have negated the first day. Rebbi Yehoshua will counter that - by arguing that this would be correct if she had a definite sighting, but since it is only a Safek, we merely ignore the days that are a Safek, and count the two which they counted.

(d)Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yossi in a Beraisa, who actually rule like Rebbi Eliezer, agree on principle with Rebbi Akiva (as against Rebbi Eliezer). They prefer Rebbi Eliezer's opinion to that of Rebbi Yehoshua however - because he is consistent (by applying the Chazakah that they did not see, to the middle five days, whereas Rebbi Yehoshua is not, as we explained.

11)

(a)The third case of Rebbi Eliezer is the Mishnah in Taharos, where he rules that the back of Keilim which became Tamei through contact with a liquid renders liquids Tamei, whereas food, it does not even render Pasul. The difference between Tamei and Pasul is - that Tamei means that it is a Rishon le'Tumah, which is able to transmit Tum'ah (to make a Sheini), whereas Pasul means that it is a Sheini, which is itself Tamei, but (as far as Chulin is concerned) it cannot transmit Tum'ah to others.

(b)He adds to the phrase ...

1. ... 'Metam'in es ha'Mashkin' - 'va'Afilu de'Chulin'.

2. ... 'Ein Poslin es ha'Ochlin' - 'va'Afilu di'T'rumah'.

(c)Rebbi Yehoshua - maintains that it renders food Pasul, too.

(d)And he Darshens a 'Kal-va'Chomer based on the fact that whereas a T'vul-Yom is not Metamei Chulin liquids, the back of Keilim is. Consequently - if a T'vul-Yom renders Pasul those who eat T'rumah (giving them the Din of a Sh'lishi), then the back of Keilim certainly should do so.

12)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer counters that - based on the fact that a T'vul-Yom is d'Oraysa, whereas the back of Keilim is only de'Rabbanan, and we cannot learn a de'Rabbanan from a d'Oraysa via a 'Kal-va'Chomer'.

(b)The Chachamim differentiated between the back of a K'li and the inside - to remind us that the Tum'ah concerned is only de'Rabbanan (in which case, one cannot burn T'rumah that became Tamei through it.

(c)Liquid that touched the back of K'li is only mi'de'Rabbanan - because min ha'Torah, it is only an Av ha'Tum'ah that can render Keilim Tamei.

(d)The Rabbanan decreed ...

1. ... that liquids should render a K'li Tamei - on account of the liquids of a Zav (i.e. his spit and his urine).

2. ... that liquid that touches the back of the K'li should become Tamei, but not food - because unlike food (which first needs to become Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah), liquid is subject to Tum'ah immediately.

13)

(a)Even though liquid that touches the inside of a K'li renders Tamei mi'de'Rabbanan too, Rebbi Eliezer mentions specifically the back of Keilim (to differentiate between liquid and food) - because since the inside is more stringent in other regards (as we shall now see), the Chachamim were also stringent by attributing the same Dinto food as to liquids (see also Tosfos DH 'Mishum').

(b)This answer is based on a Mishnah in Keilim. The Tana there rules that ...

1. ... the inside, the ear (with which one suspends the K'li), the rim and the handles of a K'li, whose outside became Tamei through liquid - are all Tahor.

2. ... the entire K'li, whose inside became Tamei - is Tamei.

(c)In most of the above cases, the Mishnah or Beraisa rules explicitly like Rebbi Eliezer ('ve'Halachah ki'Devarav'). The one exception is - the last one that we discussed (that of 'Achorei Keilim').

(d)We ask why Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel sees fit to rule like Rebbi Eliezer as well in all four cases. The reason cannot be to teach us that the ruling is like him regarding 'Achorei ha'Keilim' too (although it is not listed with the others) - because then, he ought to have just said 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Eliezer ba'Achorei Keilim'.

14)

(a)In fact, Shmuel sees fit to rule like Rebbi Eliezer in all four cases - because we cannot rely on the rulings of Tana'im contained in a Mishnah or a Beraisa.

(b)The reason for this is - because the Amora'im tend to delve more into the reasons of all the Tana'im mentioned there than the Tana'im themselves, who did not concern themselves so much with the reasoning behind the rulings of other Tana'im.