Question #1: Rabanan are Metamei even in Reshus ha'Rabim because there are two Re'usos. If so, this is not a Safek, and it has no connection to Sotah!

Question #2: Similarly a barrel, which is Vadai Tevel according to Rabanan, like the case of a Mikveh (how can we learn it from Sotah?) We learn only Tum'ah from Sotah!

Question #3: Also R. Shimon, who learns a barrel from Tum'ah, this has no connection to Sotah!

Answer (R. Tam): It says here [that both learn from Sotah] only to explain why we should not ask from Sotah;

Rabanan's reason is because there are two Re'usos, so it is Vadai, and not a Safek;

R. Shimon holds that it is a Safek. He does not hold that "it is deficient in front of you [so also before it was deficient; rather,] now it became deficient."

Against "establish the Mikveh in its Chazakah of being complete", we can say "establish the Tamei on his Chazakah." Therefore, in Reshus ha'Yachid we suspend, according to letter of the law, even though we do not learn from Sotah. And therefore, also a barrel is a Safek.

Distinction: However, in Reshus ha'Rabim he is Metaher, even though there is no Chazakah, for we learn from Sotah, like I explained above. Regarding every Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid, he holds that we suspend.

Question: Rabanan said properly (to refute this)! There, there is Chezkas Taharah!

Answer: He learns from the beginning of Tum'ah when there is no Chezkas Taharah, e.g. the toddler in Kidushin (80a, who was found next to a dough). The majority of toddlers who touch is against the Chezkas [Taharah] of the dough;

It is not an absolute majority. It is like half against the Chazakah, and if [the dough] was Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol, mid'Oraisa it would be totally Tamei in Reshus ha'Yachid, and totally Tahor in Reshus ha'Rabim, for we learn from Sotah;

Rabanan say that there, there is Chezkas Taharah, i.e. against the majority who touch, and it is a Safek, and we learn from Sotah to be Metaher in Reshus ha'Rabim;

However, here the man has Chezkas Tum'ah. There are two Re'usos, so it is like Vadai.

Explanation: We challenge Shamai, who is Metaher totally.

Question: The Seifa taught there 'if a stain was found on her cloak, it is Metamei retroactively, until she says "I checked the cloak, and there was no stain", or until it was laundered.' How can we explain this?

Suggestion: There, we can say that there is blood from her body and from elsewhere [so this is like two Re'usos]!

Rejection: Due to blood from elsewhere, only the cloak would be Tamei! Also below (6a), we say that one who finds a stain is confused about her count (it is a Safek when she became Nidah)!

Answer: Since if the stain is dry, you are forced to say that she is Temei'ah retroactively, and also sometimes when it is moist, it is proven that it did not come now, rather, [earlier] through bending or dancing [e.g. it is on her skin, above her belt], like it says below (57b), Rabanan did not distinguish among stains [and always are Metamei retroactively].

Assertion: According to this version, we also need the reason that we establish the woman on her Chazakah.

Proof: If not, when it says that Shamai agrees about a lunatic, and similarly that Shamai agrees about a Moch (a wad that would hold in the blood), will he be Metamei her retroactively even for Chulin?! All women are Dayan Shaitan for Chulin, even according to Hillel!

Rather, these reasons are needed only so we do not make a fence within Kodshim.

Explanation: [She feels] when blood is uprooted from the Makor. Since she did not feel until now, she saw only now.

Question: When she checked herself and found herself Temei'ah and did not feel, what is Shamai's reason? We should say that just like she did not feel now, so we can say that perhaps [the blood] was uprooted yesterday, and she did not feel!

Answer #1: Rabanan did not distinguish, since most times she feels;

Support: According to the reason that if there really was blood earlier, it would have come out, how can we answer for one who lies on her back? Rather, Rabanan did not distinguish.

Implied question: Why does it say that Shamai agrees about a lunatic and one who uses a Moch? (We should say that Rabanan did not distinguish!)

Answer: These are very different from other women, so it is not applicable to say that Rabanan did not distinguish!

Answer #2 (Rashi): She did not feel now, because she thought that she felt the Bedikah.

Objection: Also from yesterday, we should say that she did not feel, if she had relations, is because she attributed the Hargashah to the Ever. Why are we Metaher retroactively?

Rather, Shamai holds that always, a woman feels [blood], and she has no doubt about [attributing it to] Hargashah of a Bedikah or the Ever, just like she has no doubt about [attributing feeling blood to] the Hargashah of urine.

Question: (Why is he stringent?) Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol!

Answer: The case is, a person touched her, and he wants to engage in Kodshim, and that person Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol.

Explanation: According to Shamai, who relies on the reason of Hargashah to be Metaher even for Kodshim, we should have been Metaher Kesamim even from now and onwards!

We should say that since she did not feel, surely it came from elsewhere, like it says below (5a) regarding a girl who did not reach the age [at which we expect her] to see blood;

Even if her garments are dirty with blood, we are not concerned for her. I can say that she passed through a butcher's market (and blood splashed on her), and she was unaware.

Distinction: However, this is not difficult for Hillel. Since the reason of Hargashah is not clear to him to be Metaher Kodshim, we should not attribute Kesamim and say that they came from elsewhere, even for Chulin, for there are Raglayim l'Davar that they came from her body, even retroactively (we should be Metamei).

Question #1: Also according to these reasons, we can ask [from a barrel and Mikveh], for Shamai agrees about a lunatic, who does not feel, that retroactively we are Toleh, and regarding a Mikveh we burn!

Question #2: Similarly, according to Hillel, who disagrees with these reasons, we must answer like we answered, that there, there are two Re'usos!

Answer #1: The reason of Hargashah helps according to Hillel not to be Metamei Vadai, and for Shamai it helps even for a lunatic, not to be Metamei her Vadai.

Answer #2: He knew the reason of two Re'usos to burn. However, we suspend even when there are not two Re'usos;

The primary question above against Shamai is because [even though] in a woman there are not two Re'usos, he should not be Metaher totally.

Question: Still, we can ask that regarding a Mikveh we are Metamei even in Reshus ha'Rabim, and when one touched someone at night Chachamim are Metaher in Reshus ha'Rabim when he saw him alive the previous day. You are forced to say that the reason is because in a Mikveh, there are two Re'usos!

Answer: Above, he asked only why Shamai is Metaher even in Reshus ha'Yachid.

Observation: We could have said that they argue about a lunatic! According to the first version, that a woman feels, Shamai agrees about a lunatic!

Suggestion: Also according to the version that if there were blood, it would have come earlier, Shamai agrees about a lunatic, for perhaps other blood fell before the Bedikah!

Rejection: It connotes that [Shamai] says so about blood that was found now [that it would have come earlier].

Explanation: Then (when it has no bottom), they use it when it lies down. The box is square, and we use it widthwise. Taharos were found in the right, and a Sheretz in the left. They argue as follows:

Chizkiyah holds that the last Taharos are Tamei, but the first Taharos are Tahor, for the Sheretz fell afterwards;

If it were there initially when he lifted the box to pour the Taharos from it, also the Sheretz would have fallen.

R. Yochanan holds that also the first Taharos are Tamei, for the Ognim (the boards near the bottom bend in) held back the Sheretz from falling to the ground. Therefore, he did not see it, for the Taharos fell to the right, and he did not see to the left side, where the Sheretz was.

Distinction: However, if the box was round, R. Yochanan agrees that the first [Taharos] are Tahor, for then the Sheretz and Taharos fall in one place;

Even though the Ognim hold back the Sheretz from falling to the ground, in any case if there were a Sheretz there, he would have seen it. Therefore, he discussed specifically when [the Sheretz] was found in a different corner.

Proof: It is proven in Shabbos (8a) that a Stam Kupah (box) is square, for regarding a hive it says that it is six (Tefachim) wide, for it is round, and it needs to contain a square four by four, and regarding a Kupah it said that it is four wide, for it is square.

Buckets, even if they are round, this is fine, for it is normal to pour water quickly, and people do not see if a Sheretz remained in the Kelim.

Observation: According to R. Yochanan, [we said that] Shamai agrees about a Kupah. Likewise, we could have discussed even a Kupah without a bottom, and it has Ognim.

Question (R. Menachem): Why don't we bring the Mishnah in Taharos (4:4) which teaches that one who drew 10 buckets [of water], and a Sheretz was found in one of them, it is Tamei, and all [the rest] of them are Tahor?

Answer #1: There, it did not teach "one after the other", and we can say that the case is, that he draws there 10 buckets, and all are together in the pit, and the 10th that he lifted, a Sheretz was found in it;

We do not know, when the Sheretz was on the water in the pit, whether it touched the other buckets while they were in the pit. This is Safek Tum'ah floating on water. It is Tahor, even in Reshus ha'Yachid, like it says in Nazir (64a).

There is no difference between whether or not it has Ognim.

Answer #2: The Mishnah does not teach "water". We can say that it discusses a pit with wine or oil, and the Chidush is that the first nine buckets are Tehorim, and we do not say that the Sheretz was in the pit initially and was Metamei everything;

Note: Water in the pit is considered "attached" to the ground, so it is not Mekabel Tum'ah, but other liquids in a pit are Mekabel Tum'ah. Therefore, now Tosfos says that if the Sheretz was in the pit initially, it was Metamei everything. Maharam and Maharsha prove that we still discuss drawing in 10 buckets.

Rather, we say that it fell in the last bucket initially, while it was still empty, and when he lowered it to the pit at the end, it is Tamei, and it is Metamei everything in the pit, but the first buckets are Tahor.