1)

(a)Rebbi Chanina declares Tamei, a woman who finds a Kesem the size of a G'ris-plus with a louse attached. According to Rebbi Yanai - she is Tahor.

(b)Rebbi Yanai counters Rebbi Chanina's argument, that we do not ascribe more than a ke'Geris of blood to a louse - by differentiating between a regular case and one where a louse is actually attached to it, where we ascribe the extra bit to the louse, and the ke'Geris to another louse (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

(c)Rebbi Yirmiyah asks what the Din will be regarding a woman who, whilst dealing with a ke'Geris of blood (of a bird or of a plaster) finds a Kesem of a ke'Geris plus. Rebbi ...

1. ... Chanina might concede that she is Tahor - because, unlike the previous case, she was actually dealing with the blood.

2. ... Yanai might concede that she is Tamei - because unlike the previous case, there was no louse attached to the extra bit.

2)

(a)We try to resolve Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah from a Beraisa, where the Tana first of all rules that a woman who is dealing with something red and discovers a black Kesem - is Tamei.

(b)In similar vein, he declares Tamei a woman who is dealing with a little blood and finds a lot, which, we assume - is referring to the same case about which Rebbi Yirmiyah asked.

(c)We refute this however - by establishing the case where she is dealing with a ke'Geris, and she finds two plus a bit.

(d)If not for the Beraisa, we might otherwise have thought that - we take the ke'Geris of blood of the bird and place it in the middle, leaving less than ke'Geris plus on either side, each of which we will now ascribe to a louse.

3)

(a)When Rava rules that if a woman who is carrying one species, subsequently discovers a Kesem, she is Tahor, he means that - if she finds on herself one type of red species (see Tosfos DH 'Nimtza Alehah'), and she then discovers a Kesem, she is Tahor, even though the colors are not exactly the same ...

(b)... because we assume that, just as the one somehow came on her inadvertently (see Rashash), so did the other.

(c)And the previous Beraisa renders Tamei a woman who is dealing with red and who subsequently discovers a black stain - only because she was dealing with it, in which case she can only be Tahor if the Kesem that she subsequently discovers is the same color.

(d)In the second Lashon, we answer that - Rava is referring to a case where she had been dealing with a chicken that contains various color bloods, one of which tallies with the Kesem that she later found.

4)

(a)To reconcile the episode with Rebbi Akiva (who is lenient regarding Kesamim), with the Beraisa, which states that the Chachamim did not decree Kesamim in order to be lenient, but in order to be stringent, Ravina explains that - on the one hand Kesamim was instituted as a Chumra on the Torah law, whereas on the other, it is only mi'de'Rabbanan, in which all S'feikos pertaining to it, we go le'Kula.

5)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok in our Mishnah declares Tahor a round Kesem that is discovered on a cloth, and an elongated one, Tamei. We ask - whether the Rabbanan argue with this or not.

(b)The Beraisa 'Kesem Aruch Mitztaref; Tipin Tipin Ein Mitztarfin' (that we cite in this connection) means that - an elongated Kesem combines with a ke'Geris-plus to render a woman Tamei, whereas mere drops do not.

(c)We initially think that the author of the Beraisa cannot be Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok - who would not require a combination, seeing as he declares an elongated Kesem Tamei anyway, in which case, we see that the Rabbanan argue with him.

(d)We reject this suggestion however, by establishing the author as Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok - whose initial statement we restrict to a cloth, since the shape is then determined by the way one tends to wipe away stains, whereas the Beraisa is speaking about a Kesem.

(e)Nevertheless, we finally cite Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, who stated - 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok', a proof that the Rabbanan argue.

6)

(a)We have already discussed our Mishnah, where Rebbi Meir declares Tamei, a woman who discovers blood in her urine if she urinated standing, but Tahor if she did so sitting. Rebbi Yossi - declares her Tahor either way.

(b)Rebbi Yossi also declares her Tahor in a case where blood is found in a bowl into which both a man and a woman urinated. Rebbi Shimon rules that - she is Tamei, because whereas it is unusual for a man to emit blood, it is common for a woman to do so.

(c)To explain why ...

1. ... the urine does not go back to the M'kor when the woman is sitting (like it does when she is standing), Shmuel establishes Rebbi Meir - by a woman whose urine spurted out ...

2. ... Rebbi Meir rules out the possibility of the blood having emerged independently from the M'kor, after she finished urinating, Rebbi Aba establishes the case - where she discovers the blood on the edge of the bowl (where she previously sat), in which case it must have emerged with the urine [because had it emerged independently, it would have appeared inside the bowl]).

(d)Shmuel (quoted by Rav Yehudah, according to some) rules like - Rebbi Yossi.

(e)'And so did Rebbi Aba rule for Kala' - the name of a man who came to ask him this very She'eilah.

7)

(a)We ask whether, when Rebbi Meir says 'Im Omedes Teme'ah', he is also referring to the case of where the woman and her husband both urinated into the bowl. We think that he might not - because it is a S'fek S'feika (in addition to the initial doubt whether the blood came from the M'kor or not, there is an additional doubt that it may have come from the man).

(b)Resh Lakish's ruling that Rebbi Meir draws no distinction between the two cases, is based - on the Seifa, which writes 'Rebbi Yossi Omer ... Tahor', omitting Rebbi Meir.

(c)Even though Rebbi Meir rendered the woman Tamei even in the Seifa (which is a S'fek S'feika), he nevertheless found it necessary to issue his ruling in the Reisha (which is only one Safek) - to teach us that Rebbi Yossi argues and holds Tahor (even by one Safek).

(d)And the reason that they did not rather argue in the Seifa, to teach us how far Rebbi Meir goes is - due to the principle Ko'ach de'Hetera Adif (the power of Heter takes precedence, since it is easier to go Lechumra whenever one is not sure, than it is to prove that it is permitted).

8)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Resh Lakish. In his opinion - Rebbi Meir concedes to Rebbi Yossi in the Seifa that it is Tahor.

(b)In fact - the Seifa ought to read 'Rebbi Meir ve'Rebbi Yossi Metaharin', only the Tana began with Rebbi Yossi, whose opinion he stated last in the Reisha (and for some reason, Rebbi Meir's name is omitted), he concluded with him.

(c)And even though Rebbi Yossi renders the woman Tahor in the Reisha (by one Safek), he nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat it in the Seifa (by S'fek S'feika) - to teach us that it is not only Kasher Bedieved (where she already dealt with Taharos), but that she may even do so Lechatchilah.

(d)The Beraisa that we cite in support of Rebbi Yochanan, states - (in connection with a man and a woman who urinated into a bowl 'Rebbi Meir ve'Rebbi Yossi Metaharin, ve'Rebbi Shimon Metamei'.

9)

(a)When Rebbi Shimon in the Seifa, declares the woman Tamei, we ask - whether he is speaking specifically when she urinated standing, or even when she did so sitting.

(b)We resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Meir rules 'Toleh' (that we rely on the urine when she is sitting), but not when she is standing. The Tana cites the opinion of ...

1. ... Rebbi Yossi as - 'Bein Kach u'Vein Kach, Toleh'.

2. ... Rebbi Shimon as - 'Bein Kach u'Vein Kach, Tamei'.

(c)The second She'eilah we ask according to Rebbi Shimon (on the assumption that the previous She'eilah speaks when she urinated on her own - whether he speaks even where the man and the woman were sitting (in which case we have two advantages le'Kula [S'fek S'feika]).

(d)Here too, we resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, which specifically rules that - due to the Chazakah that blood does not come from the man, it will make no difference whether the woman is standing or sitting.

10)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that a woman who lends her undershirt to a Nochris or to a Nidah (and who finds a Kesem on it when it is returned to her) - may rely on the Tum'ah coming from them ...

(b)... since it does not make any difference to the woman who borrowed it.

(c)This would not be the Din if the borrower was a Yisre'elis who was not a Nidah however - since by declaring herself Tahor, the owner would cause the borrower to become Tamei. Consequently, both women are automatically Tamei (like we will learn in the following case).

(d)And in the case of three women who used the same undershirt or who sat on a wooden bench (one after the other), and who then discovered a Kesem on the one or on the other the Tana rules that - they are all Tamei.

11)

(a)In a similar case, but where the bench is made of stone or if it is a colonnade in a bathhouse, Rebbi Nechemyah rules that - they are all Tahor ...

(b)... because - whatever is not subject to Tum'ah, is not subject to the Din of Kesamim either.

(c)A wooden bench, on the other hand, is subject to - Tum'as Moshav of both a Zav and a Nidah.