1)

(a)Beis Shamai in our Mishnah considers every woman who dies a Nidah. We initially attribute the source for this to the Pasuk in Megilas Esther "va'Tischalchal ha'Malkah Me'od, which Rav explains to mean that - Esther had a sighting because she was afraid; likewise the fear of the Angel of Death causes a woman to have a sighting.

(b)And we reconcile this with the Mishnah in the fourth Perek 'she'Charadah Mesalekes es ha'Damim' (fear removes the blood) - by differentiating between an ongoing fear (our Mishnah) and a sudden shock (the Mishnah in B'nos Kutim).

(c)We query this however, from a Beraisa, where Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel repeat their argument regarding men who die - whom Beis Shamai consider Zavin, whilst Beis Hillel restrict the Din of Zivus to those men whom we know to be Zavin.

(d)The problem with this is that - if Beis Shamai's reason was due to the fear of death, then, based on the D'rashah that we learned in the fourth Perek) "mi'Besaro", 've'Lo Machmas Onso' (precluding a sighting that came through an Oneis from the Din of Zivus), a man would not be considered a Zav through such a sighting.

2)

(a)Beis Shamai's real reason is cited in another Beraisa, where the Tana rules that originally - they used to Tovel the clothes that a Nidah and a Zav wore close to there death.

(b)The Chachamim changed this Minhag however - when they saw that Nidos and Zavin who were still alive were embarrassed over the fact that they were treated differently even after their death ...

(c)... so they instituted for the clothes that all women and men had worn shortly before their death to be Toveled (according to Beis Shamai).

3)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that a Revi'is of blood that emerges from a woman after her death is Metamei because of Kesem - in which case, even a Mashehu is Metamei (and it does not require the Revi'is to remain intact in order to do so).

(b)The Tana Kama's ruling 'u'Metamei Mishum Ohel' will then differ from the previous one - in that it will require the Revi'is of blood to remain intact, since Tum'as Ohel requires a Revi'is of blood.

4)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah ('Einah Metam'ah Mishum Kesem') argues - inasmuch as, in his opinion, the blood is not Metamei because of Kesem (since it only moved from the M'kor after her death).

(b)He will concede however, that in a case where a woman dies as she is about to give birth, the blood that emerges after her death is Tamei because of Kesem - since it moved from the M'kor before she died.

(c)Rebbi Yossi adds that - that being the case, it is not Metamei be'Ohel.

5)

(a)Ze'iri attributes the Tana Kama's ruling, declaring Tamei the blood that emerges from the womb after death because of Kesem - to the principle (that we have discussed a number of times) M'kor, Mekomo Tamei. Consequently, since the blood was in the M'kor during the deceased woman's lifetime, it is Tamei because of Kesem, even though it only moved after her death.

(b)Whereas Rebbi Yehudah holds - M'kor, Mekomo Eino Tamei.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yossi states that since the blood of a woman who died just before child-birth is Metamei because of Kesem, it cannot also be Metamei because of Ohel. The Tana Kama (Rebbi Yehudah) rules that - it can.

(b)Rav Yehudah establishes their Machlokes by Dam Tevusah - which is a Revi'is of blood which began to emerge from the woman before she died, and we do not know whether it all emerged then, or whether some of it emerged after her death. The source of the ruling that is Metamei be'Ohel - is mi'de'Rabbanan ...

(c)... since min ha'Torah, it is only Metamei if a Revi'is emerged from the woman after death.

7)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, considers Dam Tevusah blood that emerged from a Meis and one does not know whether it emerged before or after death, or part before and part after. According to the Chachamim, as long as all the blood may have emerged after death, it is a Safek d'Oraysa (and not mi'de'Rabbanan).

(b)They will therefore rule in this case that - it all depends on whether the Safek occurred in the R'shus ha'Yachid (in which case S'feiko Tamei), or in the R'shus ha'Rabim (and S'feiko Tahor).

(c)The case of Dam Tevusah according to the Chachamim, is - where a Revi'is of blood began to flow from a murdered man in his lifetime, and we do not know whether the majority of the Revi'is emerged in his lifetime or after he died (but we do know that all the blood did not flow out after his death).

(d)It is not Tamei mi'Safek min ha'Torah (even if the majority flowed from after the man's death) - because min ha'Torah, a whole Revi'is is required, and not just a Rov.

(e)If, on the other hand, we knew that most of the blood emerged before he died - then it would not be Metamei, even mi'de'Rabbanan.

8)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah defines Dam Tevusah as where the initial blood flowed into a pit, and blood continued dripping into it after he died. The Chachamim disagree - because they hold that, since some of the murdered man's blood was already in the pit during his lifetime, the blood that drips after his death is Bateil ...

(b)... and the blood is Dam Tevusah, according to them - there where the dead man is lying on the ground and the blood continues to trickle from him without a break after his death into the pool of blood that had already gathered in his lifetime, in which case it does not become Bateil.

(c)When we justify Rebbi Yehudah's opinion with the statement 'Rebbi Yehudah le'Ta'ameih', we are referring to his ruling elsewhere that - 'Nothing becomes Bateil in its own species (Miyn be'Miyno Lo Bateil').

9)

(a)Rebbi Shimon rules that a Revi'is of blood of a man who was crucified which ran on to the ground - is Tamei (like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah).

(b)Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with that - because the blood that ran from him must have done so during his lifetime, and any drops that dripped from him after his death will have fallen on to the wood on which he was crucified.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah does not use this argument in his own case earlier in the Beraisa where the Meis is lying in a bed above a pit - because, unlike the wood, the bed becomes saturated and the drops of blood will inevitably drip into the pit.

10)

(a)During her days of Taharah (following seven days for a boy and fourteen for a girl) - a woman who gave birth, has the status of a Sheini le'Tum'ah ...

(b)... because, after her initial days of Tum'ah, she Tovels and becomes a Tevulas Yom Aruch until she brings her Korban on the sixty-first or the eighty-first day.

(c)Consequently, when our Mishnah states that, initially, they used to allow her to pour water to wash the Korban Pesach, the Tana means that - it is in order for her to pour the water from one vessel to another (provided she refrains from touching the water) ...

(d)... since a Sheini is not Metamei a K'li.

(e)She was forbidden to touch the water - which had the Din of Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Kodesh, which at that stage, they gave the status of Kodshim (which a Sheini renders Tamei).

11)

(a)They subsequently gave her the Din of someone who has touched a Tamei Meis (regarding Kodshim), according to Beis Hillel - which renders her a Rishon (rather than a Sheini).

(b)Beis Shamai consider her even like a Tamei Meis (which is an Av) - in which case she will even render Keilim (of Kodshim) Tamei too (which, according to Beis Hillel, she will not).

(c)The hidden bone of contention between the Reisha of the Mishnah and the Seifa is - whether Chulin she'Na'aseh al Taharas ha'Kodesh is considered Kodshim (the Reisha) or Chulin (the Seifa).

(d)We establish our Mishnah like Aba Shaul, who, in a Beraisa - considers a T'vul-Yom a Rishon as far as Kodshim is concerned.

(e)When he says 'Metamei Shenayim, u'Posel Echad', he therefore means that she is Metamei two levels (to render what she touches a Sheini, and what the Sheini touches, a Shelishi), and makes Pasul one (the Revi'i is Pasul, but cannot transmit the Tum'ah further).

12)

(a)Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai agree however, that the woman is permitted to eat Ma'aser (Sheini [since Ma'aser Rishon may even be eaten by a Tamei Meis]) - because a T'vul Yom is forbidden to eat Kodshim and Terumah, but not Ma'aser.

(b)And they also permit her to separate Chalah from the dough. Despite the fact that Chalah has the same Kedushah as Terumah, this is permitted - due to the fact that she has not yet declared it Chalah.

(c)The Tana rules that a loaf of Terumah on which some of her spit or blood fell - remains Tahor.

(d)Beis Shamai - obligate her to Tovel at the end of her Taharah period, whereas Beis Hillel do not ...

(e)... though they agree with Beis Shamai that she requires Tevilah - before dealing with Kodshim.

13)

(a)Our Mishnah permits a Yosheves al Dam Tohar to separate Chulin before declaring it Chalah - based on the principle Chulin ha'Tevulin le'Chalah La'av ke'Chalah Dami (even though Chulin that is ready to have Chalah taken from it contains the Chalah that will ultimately be separated, it does not have the Din of Chalah).

(b)She is obligated to place the K'li containing the Chalah that she separated next to the dough - due to the Halachah Mitzvah Lit'rom min ha'Mukaf (Lechatchilah one should place the dough that one is separating from next to the other dough that is being covered by it before declaring it Chalah).

(c)If not for the Mishnah, we would have forbidden her to separate Chalah in this way - in case she comes to touch it (See Maharsha).

14)

(a)The Mishnah in T'vul-Yom compares the liquids that a T'vul-Yom emits to the liquids that he touches, both of which are Tahor - with the sole exception of a T'vul-Yom of a Zav and Zavah, which are Tamei.

(b)Rav Ketina confines the Machlokes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai regarding the final Tevilah - to a T'vul-Yom Aruch.

(c)An ordinary T'vul-Yom, who already Toveled earlier in the day, does not require a second Tevilah - even according to Beis Shamai).