1)

(a)We query Rav Ashi however from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok queried the Chachamim in Usha. When he suggested that they had no Shi'ur for a woman to be Metamei the Bo'el other than 'Me'es Le'es' like Rebbi Akiva - they replied that there is a Shi'ur ('Osyum') but that they had no tradition as to what it was, and that they did not hold like Rebbi Akiva regarding Achar de'Achar).

(b)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok then went on to classify a case where the woman examined herself without descending from the bed (but where she was not holding the Eid in her hand) - as Toch Z'man.

(c)And he ruled - that they are both Safek Tamei and Patur from a Chatas, but Chayav an Asham Taluy.

(d)Whereas if she waited until having descended from the bed up to Me'es Le'es and mi'Pekidah li'Pekidah, according to ...

1. ... the Chachamim - the husband is Tamei because of Noge'a (one day), but not because of Bo'el Nidah (seven days).

2. ... Rebbi Akiva - he is Tamei because of Bo'el Nidah.

2)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah b'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai in the latter case - not only is the husband not Tamei because of Bo'el Nidah, but, assuming that he is a Kohen, he is even permitted to enter the Heichal and bring the Ketores.

(b)The Beraisa conforms perfectly with Rav Chisda. The problem with Rav Ashi is - why the Rabbanan declare the husband Tahor (from Bo'el Nidah) in the Seifa (where she descended from the bed).

(c)We cannot answer that the Tana is speaking when she is not holding the Eid in her hand either - because the Tana ought then to have said so ...

(d)... to avoid us thinking that he is speaking even when she is holding it, and nevertheless declares the husband Tahor, when really, he is Tamei.

(e)We have no answer to the Kashya on Rav Ashi.

3)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah b'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai permits the husband to enter the Heichal and bring the Ketores. In his opinion, he is not even Tamei on account of having touched a Me'es Le'es she'be'Nidah - because he holds 'Kol ha'Nashim Dayan Sha'atan', like Shamai.

(b)He is not even a Ba'al-Keri - because the Tana is speaking - there where he did not complete his Bi'ah.

(c)Rav establishes the Seifa of our Mishnah, where the Rabbanan concede that if the woman sees a Kesem Me'es Le'es, she renders the Bo'el Tamei retroactively like Rebbi Meir, who says - that we are more stringent by Kesamim than by a sighting (as we already explained in the first Perek).

4)

(a)Shmuel, who disagrees with Rav, establishes our Mishnah - by mi'Ka'an u'le'Haba (like the Rabbanan).

(b)'mi'Ka'an u'le'Haba' is not obvious, as we might have thought - that, seeing as Kesamim, like Me'es Le'es, is only mi'de'Rabbanan, just as the latter is not Metamei the Bo'el, neither is the former.

(c)We nevertheless differentiate between Me'es Le'es (which is not Metamei the Bo'el) and Kesamim (which are), based on the fact - that whereas Me'es Le'es has no solid basis (seeing as yesterday, there was no sighting), Kesamim have.

(d)Resh Lakish too, establishes our Mishnah retroactively, like Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Yochanan establishes it - mi'Ka'an u'le'Haba', like the Rabbanan.

5)

(a)What our Mishnah rules that all women are be'Chezkas Taharah for their husbands, is - that they are permitted to them without Bedikah ...

(b)... even in a case where the husband arrives home from a journey.

(c)The Tana sees fit to mention specifically where the latter case, because we might otherwise have thought - that it is only when her husband is in town that a woman will think of examining herself, but not when he has been out of town (and the husband would therefore need to suspect that she is Tamei).

(d)Resh Lakish quoting the Bei Nesi'a, qualifies the Seifa. The husband would not be permitted to rely on the Chezkas Taharah - if he arrives more than thirty days after the previous sighting, because then we would assume that she has had a new sighting, and will be forbidden without a Bedikah.

6)

(a)The problem with Rav Huna's original statement, permitting the woman where she has no Veses, but forbidding her where she has is - that the logic is inverted (since it would be more correct to permit her where she has a Veses [assuming that the time of the Veses has not yet arrived] and to forbid her where she has not).

(b)We therefore amend it to read - that a woman who has a Veses is only permitted if her Veses has not yet arrived, but not where it has ...

(c)... which implies that Rav Huna holds 'Vestos d'Oraysa' because if they were de'Rabbanan, the arrival of a Veses would not render her forbidden.

(d)Rabah bar bar Chanah - permits her either way, because he holds 'Vestos de'Rabbanan'.

7)

(a)According to Rav Ashi, Rav Huna and Rabah bar bar Chanah are speaking exclusively about a woman who has a Veses and whose Veses has arrived. Nevertheless, Rav Huna concedes that she is permitted, even though he holds Vestos d'Oraysa - in a case where she has a Veses for jumping and for days, in which case, we can rely on her Chezkas Taharah, and assume that she did not jump.

8)

(a)The practical ramifications of the ruling of Rav Shmuel quoting Rebbi Yochanan, permitting a woman who has a fixed Veses to her husband, as long as he counts the days of her Veses, are - that once seven days after her Veses have passed, he may assume that she Toveled, and is permitted to him when he arrives home, without her having to Tovel first.

(b)Rav Shmuel bar Yeiva queried this ruling however, with regard to a young girl - who is embarrassed to Tovel until her husband appeases her.

(c)Rebbi Aba replied - that in any event, Rebbi Yochanan is speaking specifically by a Safek sighting, where to begin with, the man's wife may not have had a sighting, and even if she did, she may have Toveled about a case of a S'fek S'feika.

(d)He cannot be speaking about a Vaday Nidah - because then we would apply the Chazakah 'Ein Safek (Tevilah) Motzi mi'Yedei Vaday' (Nidus ['When there is a Vaday Isur, one cannot rely on the fact that she may have Toveled]).

9)

(a)We query this principle from a Beraisa which discusses a Chaver (who is careful to eat his Chulin be'Taharah) who died leaving a store full of fruit, which he had just picked that day, and - which the Tana permits (because they have a Chazakah of being rectified) ...

(b)... even though it is a case of Safek (Tikun) Motzi mi'Yedei Vaday (Tevel); a Kashya on what we just said.

(c)We answer that that is not a case of Safek and Vaday, but of Vaday and Vaday, due to a statement by Rebbi Chanina Chuza'ah - who taught that a Chaver has a Chazakah of not leaving his crops un-Ma'asered even for one day.

(d)Alternatively, we preclude 'Chaver she'Meis' from the Din of 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vaday' by citing Rebbi Oshaya, who permits one to 'cheat' by bringing one's crops into the house (even after Miru'ach) without first removing the chaff - to permit feeding it to one's animals (or eating from it casually) without Ma'asering it.

(e)And that precludes 'Chaver she'Meis from the Din of 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vaday' - since it is possible that this is what the Chaver did (though it is unclear why it cannot be ascertained by checking the crops) see also Tosfos DH 'be'Shifchaso'.

10)

(a)We query the principle again from another Beraisa, which cites an incident with the Shifchah of a certain olive-picker in Rimon, who threw her Nefel (stillborn baby) into a pit, into which a Kohen came and peered - to ascertain whether the Nefel was a boy or a girl.

(b)The Kohen was unlikely to have been ...

1. ... a Moreh Hora'ah (a Posek), whose intention was to issue a ruling to the Shifchah regarding her days of Tum'as Leidah and the subsequent days of Taharah - because a Kohen Chacham would never have transgressed the Isur of Tum'as Meis forbidden by the Torah.

2. ... working out whether the Shifchah would be bringing her Korban during his period of Avodah - because a. the one dove or pigeon that she would bring was not worth the effort on his part, and b. a Yoledes is not bound by a time limit as to when she must bring her Korban, so there was no way that the Kohen could have discovered when the Shifchah would bring her Korban.

(c)The Kohen did it - either because he lived in the house, and wanted to know when to avoid contact with the Tamei Shifchah and he was a Kohen Shoteh, or a Katan, sent on his mission by some woman or other.

(d)The Chachamim subsequently declared him Tahor - on the assumption that in any event, a weasel or marten would have eaten the Nefel by the time he arrived.

11)

(a)The problem with the Chachamim's ruling is - that it appears to contravene the principle currently under discussion 'Ein Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Vaday'.

(b)We initially amend the case - to one of Safek Nefel) in which case it would have been a matter of 'Safek Motzi mi'Yedei Safek'.

(c)Alternatively - the fact that a weasel or marten ate the Nefel (or dragged it to its lair) was not a Safek, but a Vaday (in which case it was one of 'Vaday Motzi mi'Yedei Vaday').