Question: When one touched someone at night, Chachamim said that if he saw him alive the previous day, he is Tahor, for Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim is Tahor;

Inference: In Reshus ha'Yachid, even if he saw him alive the previous day, he is Tamei.

What is the case of the box? If it is in Reshus ha'Rabim, why is R. Yochanan Metamei? If it is in Reshus ha'Yachid, why is Chizkiyah Metaher?

Answer: It is in Reshus ha'Yachid. Chizkiyah explains the Beraisa of when he saw him alive the previous day, he is Tahor, even in Reshus ha'Yachid.

Implied question: The Beraisa says "Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim is Tahor"!

Answer: It means that it is like Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim, since it was checked initially;

Since the Reisha used these words in the opinion of R. Meir, when he did not see him alive the previous day, i.e. the Tosefta teaches "R. Meir is Metaher in Reshus ha'Rabim", for parallel structure, it used these words in Chachamim's opinion in the Seifa.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Blood did not fall on her from elsewhere.

Question: If so, all the more so she is Temei'ah, for we cannot attribute to other blood. Rather, it came from her body!

Explanation #2: She is covered, i.e. the Makor (source of menstrual blood) is closed, and when blood leaves it, it opens, and she should have felt it.

Question: They argue about a checked box. If not, what does it help that it is covered?

If so, what is the question "a woman is covered"? What does a cover help, since it is not as if she is checked?

Answer: He wants to resolve even if she is considered like checked.

Reference: Above (2a DH me'Es), I explained that this is only for Kodshim.

Suggestion: A needle that was found full of rust, it is Tahor, because all Tum'os are [assumed to be] like they are at the time they are found, even to be lenient. This is mid'Oraisa!

Rejection: No. Rather, it is because we establish the Taharos in their Chazakah.

Question: What was the question from a loaf on a board? Perhaps it is a Chulin loaf!

Answer: Even for Chulin, we should not go so far to attribute to a Tahor person, since it seems more likely that it fell;

We should be Metamei from place to place, since it cannot fall unless it touched, if in any place we are stringent, even [if that place is] in Kodshim.

Question: Hi ha'Nosenes (for this reason we should say so! It is Tahor) because we totally follow the time it is found, even to attribute from place to place, therefore a needle found full of rust is totally Tahor!

Answer: We can say that this is what [the Beraisa says] "they are totally like at the time they are found", whether to be lenient or stringent!

Question: Still, what did the Makshan think?

Answer: He thought that since [R. Yochanan] is so stringent to attribute even from place to place, you are forced to say that it is not a proper reason. It is only for Kodshim, and due to a stringency;

If so, regarding a needle he should not be Metaher totally due to the time it was found. Rather, he should say that now it rusted!

Question: There is different, for Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol, like it says below!

Answer: We ask that if in any place we are stringent from place to place, even for Kodshim, we should not make a Safek and attribute to a Tahor person, for it is more reasonable to attribute to falling.

Question: Here we attribute to a Tahor person. In Chulin (9b), regarding a plate that one left covered, and he came and found it exposed, we attribute to a Tamei person! Similarly, in Pesachim (10b) regarding an axe [lost in the house, we assume that a Tamei person moved it]!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Only regarding Kelim that are found, we decree Tum'ah, because they can become Tahor through a Mikveh, and there is no loss;

However, regarding food, there is a loss, for it cannot become Tahor through a Mikveh, so they were not stringent.

Answer #2: Here it is proven that a Tahor person removed it intentionally, lest it fall on the Tamei garment. However, elsewhere it is Tamei, both regarding food and Kelim, for we cannot say that a person did so to fix matters.

Implied question: A person who used the box is Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol!

Answer: In any case we ask that since through attributing to a Tahor person you do not consider it a Safek, even though falling seems more reasonable, if so it is very common that a Tahor person came there;

Also here, we should say that a raven came and cast [the Sheretz], and it is not a Safek!

Explanation: The garment is in an inclined place. Even if the loaf fell on the garment, it would not remain there;

However, if the garment is on level ground, obviously [the loaf did not fall on it, so] is Tahor!

Suggestion: He comes to answer that even if it is Davar she'Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol, it is fine.

Rejection: Why should he answer this, since in truth, a loaf and a garment is Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol!

Explanation #1: Rather, he explains that even if we cannot attribute to a Tahor person as much as on falling, for it is almost Vadai that it fell, like the Makshan holds, it is fine, for we discuss a Tum'ah mid'Rabanan. We discuss Bigdei Am ha'Aretz [which are considered Tamei mid'Rabanan] to Perushim (stringent people).

Explanation #2 (Rashi): Garments of Perushim are Midras (Tamei) to people who eat Terumah.

Inference: He holds that now we come to answer even if it is Davar she'Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol. This is why he did not explain Bigdei Am ha'Aretz to Perushim, for there we would not be lenient;

Source: It says in Shabbos (15b) that there are six Sefekos for which we burn Terumah, and it lists Bigdei Am ha'Aretz among them, for Vadai touching them. For Safek touching them, we are Toleh.

Comment - Implied question: According to this opinion, he could have explained that the Makshan thought that Madaf is Bigdei Am ha'Aretz!

Answer: Perhaps he did not explain so, for in Toras Kohanim, Elyono Shel Zav (a Kli on top of a Zav) is called Madaf, and also in Maseches Zavin (5:2) and Eduyos (6:2).

Question: Why did it interrupt and teach one who has Bi'ah with Edim (Bedikah cloths)? It should have taught immediately "what is the case of Dayah Shaitah?"!

Answer: The Chidush is that even though she has a Veses, she must have Bi'ah with Edim, like it says in the Gemara.

Implied question: (We need not teach this here.) A Mishnah below (11a) teaches that even though they said that she is Dayah Shaitah, she must check!

Answer: Here it taught it to teach that that Bedikah is important, to diminish (retroactive Tum'ah) from me'Es la'Es, which is a Chidush, like we say in the Gemara. Below it discusses the four women who are Dayan Shaitan.

Implied question: Here it connotes that even those women who are Dayan Shaitan require Bedikah, and below (38b) a Mishnah teaches that all 11 days between Nidah and Nidah (i.e. the days of Zivah), she has Chezkas Taharah. The Gemara explains that she does not need Bedikah, and even so, it says there that she is Metamei me'Es la'Es!

Reference: With Hash-m's help I will explain there (39a DH veha'Yoledes. A woman with a Veses must check, for Oreach bi'Zmanah Ba. If Besulas Damim, or a pregnant or nursing woman would get used to not checking for a long time, they might continue not checking even when they cease to be Mesulekes Damim.)