1)

(a)Rav establishes the Reisha of our Mishnah ('Hish'ilah Chalukah le'Nochris ... Harei Zu Tolah bah') by a Nochris who is a Gedolah, who must have already had a sighting - because, since the Tana juxtaposes it to Nidah, it probably speaks in the same case as Nidah.

(b)When Rav Sheishes heard Rav's statement, he commented that - Rav must have been asleep when he said it.

(c)His comment was based on a Beraisa, where the Tana Kama relies on a Nochris, and where Rebbi Meir requires - a Nochris who has reached the age where she sees.

(d)Rav Sheishes assumed that the Tama Kama relies even on a Nochris Ketanah. We cannot answer that Rav holds like Rebbi Meir - since even Rebbi Meir only requires one who is fit to see, but not necessarily one who has actually seen.

2)

(a)Rava refuted Rav Sheishes Kashya - which assumed that the Tana Kama is lenient and that Rebbi Meir comes to be strict, whereas in reality, it is the other way round.

(b)He therefore amends the Tana Kama to read - 'Toleh be'Nochris, ve'Hu She'Ro'eh' ...

(c)... in which case, Rav holds like the Tana Kama.

3)

(a)According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the owner of the borrowed garment may rely on the second day of a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom - even though she will now have to observe the next day too.

(b)In spite of the fact that she does not have a Chazakah that she will see Zivus on that day, the owner may rely on her - because, having seen on the previous day, her Ma'ayan is open.

(c)And he even permits her to rely on the borrower if she is in the middle of the seven clean days of a Zavah - and the Kesem will cause her to begin her seven days all over again.

4)

(a)Rebbi disagrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel - because when all's said done, her claim will cause the borrower to lose a day.

(b)Rebbi will concede however that - the owner can rely on the borrower on the first day of Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom, since she does not cause her to lose any days at all.

(c)Both Tana'im add a statement 'Lefichach ... ' to their initial ruling. The 'Lefichach' of ...

1. ... Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ('Lefichach hi Mesukenes, va'Chavertah Mekulkeles') - does not teach us anything, and he only says it because Rebbi says 'Lefichach' in his statement.

2. ... Rebbi ('Lefichach Sh'teihen Mekulkalos') comes to teach us that - even though the Kesem was found by the second woman, we do not declare her Tamei and the first one, Tahor.

5)

(a)According to Rav Chisda, if two people, one Tamei and one Tahor, traverse two paths, one Tamei and one Tahor (and they do not know which person traversed which path) - Rebbi will assume that the Tamei traversed the Tamei path (just like he assumes that the Kesem came from the Tamei woman), whereas Rebbi (who does not) will not assume anything there either.

(b)Rav Ada refuted Rav Chisda's assumption however inasmuch as - even Rebbi will agree here that we will indeed assume ... - seeing that he is Tamei anyway, in which case it will make no difference to him (whereas in his case, both women are Tahor, and even the Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom could Tovel if she so wished, and be Tahor).

(c)Rav Chisda counters that - at the end of the day, the latter does require Tevilah, and until she Tovels, she is Tamei (yet Rebbi did not allow the owner to rely on her).

(d)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina ruled in the previous case, where one of the men was Tahor, and the other one ...

1. ... Tamei - that we assume the Tamei one to have traversed the Tamei path.

2. ... Taluy (a Safek) that - we even assume the Taluy one to have traversed the Tamei path ...

(e)... concurring with opinion of Rav Ada.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan asked Rebbi Yehudah bar Liva'i what the Din will be if Rachel lends Le'ah, who previously found a Kesem on her own garment, her undershirt, and after it is returned to her, she herself wears it without examining it, before finding a Kesem on it. This She'eilah will not go according to Rebbi - who does not even rely on a woman who actually had a sighting, how much more so on one who only found a Kesem.

(b)The She'eilah therefore goes according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who may well concede to Rebbi in this case, that the owner cannot rely on the borrower - seeing as he only said his Din by a borrower who actually had a sighting, but not by one who only found a Kesem.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah bar Liva'i replied 'Ein Tolin' ...

(d)... because this was the prevalent tradition that circulated among the Chachamim of that time.

7)

(a)We query Rebbi Yehudah bar Liva'i from a Beraisa, which rules 'Ein Tolin Kesem be'Kesem', and follows this - by permitting a woman who lends her undershirt to a Nochris or to a Ba'alas Kesem without first examining it, to rely on them for a Kesem that she finds after it has been returned.

(b)Initially, we explain the discrepancy - by establishing the Reisha according to Rebbi and the Seifa according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

(c)Alternatively, we establish both Beraisos like ...

1. ... Rebbi - who concedes 'Tolin' on the first day of a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom (as we learned earlier).

2. ... Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel - who will concede 'Ein Tolin' from now onwards (when she must consider herself Tamei), since in that regard, were she to rely on the borrower, she would cause her a loss, in which case there is no justification for relying on her any more than on herself.

(d)In any event, we see that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds Tolin by Kesamim (according to all the answers), posing a problem for Rebbi Yehudah bar Liva'i.

8)

(a)Ravina resolves the problem however, by interpreting the Seifa ...

1. ... 'Hish'ilah Chalukah le'Nochris' to mean that - when the owner subsequently finds the Kesem, she may rely on the borrower's sighting.

2. ... 'O le'Yosheves al ha'Kesem' - in the same way, in that the owner who finds the Kesem may rely on the borrower who was keeping seven clean days, after a sighting of Zivus.

9)

(a)Rav Masna (explaining Rebbi Nechemyah) learns from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "ve'Niksah la'Aretz Teishev" that - once a woman sits on the floor, she is Tahor (from Kesamim).

(b)Rav Huna Amar Rebbi Chanina informs us that Rebbi Nechemyah declares Tahor a woman who discovers a Kesem on the back of a K'li Cheres - because the back of a K'li Cheres is not subject to Tum'ah.

(c)We might otherwise have thought that - the Rabbanan would have decreed Tum'ah on account of a Kesem on the inside, which is subject to Tum'ah.

(d)And Abaye says that a Kesem on a cloth that is less than three Etzba'os by three Etzba'os does not render her Tamei either (see Tosfos DH 'be'Matlaniyos').

10)

(a)The problem Rav Nachman has with Rav Chiya bar Rav Masna ruling like Rebbi Nechemyah is a Beraisa cited by his father - which refers to a case that was brought before the Chachamim (a majority opinion), who declare a Kesem found on the floor, Tamei (not like Rebbi Nechemyah).

(b)The Beraisa actually discusses two women who are grinding with a hand-mill. If a Kesem is found underneath the innermost one, the Tana declares both of them Tamei - since each one will automatically try to move as close to the mill as possible (in which case the Kesem could have come from either of them.

(c)If the Kesem is found underneath ...

1. ... the outermost one - the Tana rules that only she is Tamei (since the Kesem obviously came from her).

2. ... in between them - they are both Tamei.

11)

(a)The Tana also rules that in a case where a Kesem is found on the edge of a bath-tub or on an olive-leaf (which they find whilst the women are heating an oven with olive-branches) - the Chachamim declare Tamei the women who were involved in the heating (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

(b)To answer the Kashya (on Rav Huna) we cite a second Beraisa, where Rebbi Ya'akov rules Tamei, and Rebbi Nechemyah, Tahor. The Chachamim rule - like Rebbi Nechemyah ...

(c)... a proof that there is also a majority opinion that sides with Rebbi Nechemyah (vindicating Rav Chiya bar Rav Masna Amar Rav Huna).

12)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if three women who are sleeping (huddled together) in one bed discover blood underneath one of them - then all three are Tamei.

(b)If however, one of the women should examine herself and find that she is Tamei - then only she is Tamei, and the others, Tahor.

(c)When the Tana says that ...

1. ... one woman can rely on the other, he means that - if one of two women is pregnant for example, then she can assume that the blood came from the one who is not pregnant.

2. ... if they are not fit to see, we consider them as if they were, he means that - if both of them are pregnant, then we treat them as if they were not, and they are both Tamei.

13)

(a)Rav Yehudah qualifies our Mishnah's ruling permitting the other women, if one of them discovers that she is Tamei, which will not apply - if she waited between the finding of the Kesem until she examined herself 'Shi'ur Veses' (the time it takes for a woman to take the cloth and wipe herself, without getting off the bed (see Tosfos DH 've'Hu She'Badkah').

(b)Rav Yehudah considers the criterion to render Taharos Tamei as being - where under the same circumstances, her husband would be Chayav Chatas.

(c)We equate Rav Yehudah with bar Pada, who rules that if her husband would be ...

1. ... Chayav an Asham Taluy - then her Taharos would hang in abeyance (and would not be burned [neither would the other women in our Mishnah be Tahor]).

2. ... Patur - then her Taharos would be permitted.

(d)The equivalent time period to her husband being...

1. ... Chayav an Asham Taluy - is the time it would take to descend from the bed and wipe herself immediately.

2. ... Patur - is if she were to wait any longer than that.

14)

(a)Either bar Pada does not hold of the Takanah of 'Me'eis Le'eis' (which renders Taharos Teluyos and not Vaday Teme'os) at all, or he is talking specifically about the four women to whom it does not apply.

(b)Rebbi Oshaya disagrees with bar Pada. According to him, even where her husband would be Chayav Chatas (within the time of Shi'ur Veses) - the Taharos that she worked with will hang in abeyance (in which case the other women will not be Tahor even if she examined herself ke'Shi'ur Veses [see Maharam]) ...

(c)... because, whereas regarding her husband, we can attribute the fact that the blood did not emerge during Bi'ah, to 'Shamash Ikveih' (her husband prevented it from emerging earlier), regarding the Taharos with which she was dealing, if the woman was Tamei at the time when she worked on them, then why did the blood not emerge then. Consequently, her Taharos cannot be Vaday Temei'os.

(d)To explain Rebbi Oshaya ...

1. ... Rebbi Yirmiyah gives a Mashal of a child accompanying an old man into town - who walks slowly until they reach town (Shamash Ikveih), but the moment they enter town, their ways part, the child runs home (and the blood emerges).

2. ... Abaye gives a Mashal of someone who places his finger in his eye - which does not shed tears until he removes it (see Seifer 'Eizehu Mekoman').

15)

(a)We explained 've'Tolos Zu be'Zu' in our Mishnah to mean that a woman who is pregnant can rely on the Kesem as having come from the woman who is not. The other three cases presented by the Tana are - when one woman is feeding, is old or is a Besulah, and the other one is not.