Question #1: If R. Akiva agrees in the Reisha (that she brings Asham Taluy), like it connotes that he argues only in the Seifa, if so, he holds that Yesh Em l'Mesores (we expound based on the way words are written in the Torah);

In Sanhedrin (4a), R. Akiva holds that Yesh Em l'Mikra (we expound based on the way words in the Torah are pronounced) regarding a Revi'is of blood that came from two Mesim. He says 'we pronounce it "Nafshos" (plural)!'

Suggestion: Here [R. Akiva] argues also in the Reisha.

Rejection: A Mishnah in Kerisus (22b) says that if there was a piece of Kodesh and a piece of Chulin, and Reuven ate the first (we are unsure which it was), and Shimon ate the second, R. Akiva says that both of them bring an Asham Taluy;

Why is Shimon liable? At the time he ate it, there were not two pieces. According to the opinion that requires two pieces, he is exempt in such a case, like it says there at the end of the Perek!

Question #2: Also Rebbi holds there (18a) that when one ate the first b'Mezid and the second b'Shogeg, he is obligated Asham Taluy for the second;

Rashi holds in Sanhedrin (4a) that Yesh Em l'Mikra!

Answer: We must say that there is a difference between [Yesh Em l']Mikra and Mesores here, and elsewhere.

Source: R. Chiya bar Rav, who requires two pieces, holds that everyone holds here that Yesh Em l'Mikra, and Rav Asi, who argues with him, holds that all hold that Yesh Em l'Mesores;

This is like we find (Bava Metzi'a 22b) regarding "Yutan" that is like "Yiten", "Uvad" that is like "Avad" (Pesachim 26b), "Oni" that is like "Ani" (Pesachim 36a), and "Kapos" that is like "Kapas", and there, there is another reason. (Maharsha - in all these cases, all agree that Yesh Em l'Mesores, i.e. we expound the Mikra only in a way that does not contradict the Mesores.)

Support: We ask many questions there against R. Chiya bar Rav, and answer "[the Beraisa] is R. Eliezer, who obligates Asham Taluy for Chelev of a Kvi [even though there is only one piece].

Question: Many Tana'im argue about Mikra and Mesores. Why did it mention R. Eliezer more than others? He is Shemuti (normally, the Halachah does not follow him)! Did he not know that many Tana'im argue about Mikra and Mesores?!

Answer: Rather, it is like I explained. (There is a difference between [Yesh Em l']Mikra and Mesores here, and elsewhere.)

Answer #2: R. Akiva and Rebbi discuss when the first did not eat the entire piece, rather, only half. When the second ate, there were still two pieces in front of him.

Support: The Yerushalmi in Yevamos answers like this.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It should have distinguished, [and established] everything when she delayed.

Objection: Perhaps it does distinguish within the case when she does not have an Ed in her hand, between when she delayed and when she did not delay! (What is the basis of the Gemara's question?)

Explanation #2: The Beraisa should have specified that it is when there is no Ed in her hand, since the Mishnah discusses when there is an Ed in her hand.

Observation: In any case, Shamai agrees about one "after" (in the time to take an Ed from under the pillow) that he is Tamei seven days, since he is obligated Asham Taluy.

Question: In Yuma (2a), a Mishnah says that we separate the Kohen Gadol from his house seven days [before Yom Kipur], lest he will have Bi'ah with his wife and she will be found to be Safek Nidah;

Citation (2a): Is this like R. Akiva, who says that she is Metamei [retroactively] even one who has Bi'ah with her? Rav Chisda said, it is even like Rabanan. Regarding one "after", they agree that one who has Bi'ah with her is Tamei seven days.

Why doesn't it answer that perhaps she will find a Kesem? Chachamim agree with R. Akiva about one who finds a Kesem!

Answer #1: It is because Shmuel says here from [she is Metamei him seven days only] from now and onwards (after she saw the Kesem).

Answer #2: She will check her garment before his separation. Then, the Kohen will not become Tamei before the Bedikah.

Note: The Acharonim say that Tosfos' words are awkward. He means that she will check her garment before having Bi'ah with him. Rashash asks that if later she finds a Kesem, she is Temei'ah retroactively until right after the Bedikah, i.e. before Bi'ah, so she is Metamei him! Perhaps Tosfos means she will check so close to the time of Bi'ah that we are not concerned lest the blood came after Bedikah and before Bi'ah (PF).

Question: Why does it say "perhaps his wife will be found to be Safek Nidah"? We should say lest she be found to be Vadai Nidah [at the time of Bi'ah], if she checks within Shi'ur Veses after the Bi'ah!

Answer: It is not common [that she checks so quickly]. (Aruch l'Ner - we must say that also it is not common to find blood on his Ed.)

Implied question: [The Gemara] should not have retracted from what [Rav Huna] said initially "we learned this (she has Chezkas Taharah) only in a case that she does not have a Veses", for it is true, that she is in Chezkas Taharah, like it says above (12a) that always, she does not need Bedikah for her husband, even if she does not have a Veses!

It could have added that also when she has a Veses, when the time of her Veses did not come (she has Chezkas Taharah).

Answer: Rather, it resolves the expression he said before, without addition.

Question: How is she permitted? We say in Shevuos (18b) and below (63b) that ["v'Hizartem... mi'Tum'asam"] warns Bnei Yisrael to separate from their wives shortly before their Vestos!

Answer: We discuss seven days after the Veses, for [even if she saw] she can immerse. The Safek Tevilah removes [concern for] a Safek sighting, like the case of R. Yochanan below (15b).

According to the opinion that Vestos d'Oraisa, even if she delayed the amount of [time to enable] Tevilah, she is forbidden, for we consider that she Vadai saw.

Consequence: From this, we can infer that R. Yochanan below holds that Vestos d'Rabanan.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [We ask, does R. Yochanan permit] even a Na'arah who is ashamed to immerse? We answer that R. Yochanan did not permit when she Vadai saw. Also here, since she did not Vadai see, R. Yochanan permits.

Rebuttal: This is not resolved (correct).

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel, R. Tam): Even a Yaldah who is Baziza to immerse, i.e. she give birth, and she is afraid to immerse within 30 days;

Source: It says in Shabbos (129) that Rav Chisda's daughter (Rava's wife) immersed within 30 days, and became sick, and they brought her bed to Rava [and they had relations] and she recovered.

Support: Now it is fine that [R. Aba] said "did R. Yochanan permit when she Vadai saw?!" If so, a Yoledes, even if she did not fear to immerse, R. Yochanan would not permit her, for Safek Tevilah does not remove [concern for] a Vadai sighting (or birth, which makes her Vadai Temei'ah).

"Baziz" is an expression of fear, like in Yevamos (26a) "not only his father, that his son fears him (so the father may marry a woman that the son permitted, and we are not concerned lest the son be Mezanah with her)..."

Question: However, in Pesachim (72b) it connotes that it is an expression of shame, regarding "his Yevamah, [the Yavam] is Baziz Minah (ashamed to ask her whether she is Samuch l'Vestah)", and in Yevamos (112a) [we say that a man could refrain from doing Yibum for 30 days, for] he is Baziz Minah!

Answer: We can also explain [there] that it is an expression of fear. The Aruch explained that it is an expression of shame.

Implied question: Also in Chulin (10a), regarding one who slaughtered and found that the knife is nicked, it says "a Safek [Shechitah] does not remove [concern for] a Vadai [Isur of an animal that was not slaughtered]", and we do not bring the cases of a Chaver (separating Terumah) or a Shifchah (regarding Tum'ah)!

Answer: This is because here, it is a good, common Safek. We are even lenient to say that it removes [concern for] a Vadai.

Similarly, it is not appropriate to bring [here] the case there of one who immersed and came up [and found a Chatzitzah], that a Safek removes a Vadai, for there it is a stringency. (The rule that Safek does not remove a Vadai is only to be lenient.)

Explanation: This is only his animal, like Rashi explained, that everything that it eats is called Arai (haphazard), but a person may not eat [without tithing] Keva (in a fixed way) mid'Rabanan.

Support #1: The Tosefta connotes like this, and it is brought in Beitzah (13a). If one entered into the house sheaves in order to make a dough, he eats from them Arai, and he is exempt.

Support #2: Our Gemara connotes like this, since it mentioned his animal.

Implied question: It asks in Menachos (67a) about the teaching that Miru'ach of a Nochri does not exempt due to Ba'alei Kisim, i.e. rich people who sell their grain to Nochrim before Miru'ach, and buy it back after Miru'ach...

[We ask that] he can do like R. Oshaya. I.e. he can scheme to exempt. He will enter the grain with its chaff. How did Chachamim's enactment (that Miru'ach of a Nochri does not exempt) help?

Inference: [One who does like R. Oshaya] is totally exempt (i.e. even if he will eat Keva)!

Answer #1: [We asked that] he can do like R. Oshaya, so regarding animal foods, how did Chachamim's enactment help?

Answer #2: However, if [even without an enactment] Miru'ach of a Nochri exempts only for eating Arai, just like [one could eat Arai without tithing] before Miru'ach, this is fine (it is better than Answer #1, which is difficult. The enactment was to obligate one who eats Arai, so we ask that R. Oshaya's scheme makes the enactment futile.)

Question: Bechoros (11b) requires investigation. (The Gemara expounds that if a Nochri did Miru'ach, it is exempt from Ma'aser. We read "Deganecha (your grain)" like "Diguncha" (your Miru'ach). This connotes that a Nochri's Miru'ach is totally exempt!)

Question: Since it is Vadai Tevel regarding eating Keva, even if it he entered it with the chaff, like I explained, how does a Safek (that he tithed it) remove [concern for] Vadai? We consider that the Peros were fixed!

Suggestion: A Safek removes [concern for] Vadai [Isur] mid'Rabanan.

Rejection: In Pesachim (9a), we ask from this against what it says there "wherever a weasel or Bardelas is common, Bedikah is not needed. If there were Vadai Chametz, Bedikah would be needed! The Safek that it ate it does not remove from Vadai;

We ask from the case of a Chaver, and answer that it is a Safek and a Safek, like R. Oshaya.

Summation of question: Now, in any case we say that [Safek] removes from Vadai mid'Rabanan. Also Bedikas Chametz is mid'Oraisa, for mid'Oraisa mere Bitul suffices!

Answer #1 (Ri): Our Mishnah there discusses when he was not Mevatel [his Chametz], so it is a Vadai mid'Oraisa Isur.

Answer #2 (Ri): We say here that the Chazakah is that they are fixed, i.e. those that are proper only for animals.

Inference: Regarding Tevel that saw Pnei ha'Bayis (it entered through the doorway), even his animal may not eat.

Question (Ri): Why is this unlike other benefits? We never find that Tevel is Asur b'Hana'ah!

Answer: We expound in Shabbos (26a) that we do not light [Ner Shabbos] with Tamei Tevel, because it says "Es Mishmeres Terumosai" - the verse discusses two Terumos. One is Tahor, and one is Tamei;

Just like the Tahor, you have in it, i.e. permission to eat it, only after separating [Terumah], also Tamei, i.e. burning it [is permitted only after separating].

We then learn Tahor from Tamei, that it one may not burn it before separating, and the same applies to feeding his animal and other benefit that consumes it.

Remark: From here we learn also that a Yisrael may not feed to his animal Karshinei Terumah (vetch). See also Tosfos Pesachim 34a DH Mechamin Lo.

Inference: The Shifchah is Tamei due to birth.

Support #1: This is proven in Shabbos (135b). It says that if one bought a Shifchah and she became pregnant while with him, this is "Yelid Bayis" who is circumcised on the eighth day, and there it says that whenever the mother is not Tamei due to birth, he is not circumcised on the eighth day.

Support #2 - Citation (Toras Kohanim): I would know [that Tum'ah Yoledes applies] only to Bnei Yisrael. What is the source to include a convert or slave, whether or not she was freed? It says "Ishah".

Assertion: It seems that learning one who was not freed from "Ishah" is a mere Asmachta. It mentioned it along with the others.

Source: In Kerisus (7b) it connotes that we learn from the Gezeirah Shavah "Lah-Lah", and in Yevamos (74b) we learn from "Ishah" only a convert and a freed slave. It does not mention there one who was not freed.

Assertion (R. Tam): The Kohen was a lunatic. Even if you will say that [the miscarriage] was of the woman of the house, and the Kohen was a relative, he should not have become Tamei;

It says in Toras Kohanim that Kohanim may not become Tamei for Nefalim, for we require [a Mes] similar to his father or mother. Also, this was not for the need of the Mes.

Question: Where was this pit?

If it was in Reshus ha'Rabim, even a single Safek is Tahor;

If it was in Reshus ha'Yachid, what was the answer "she cast like a Nefel into a pit"? A Beraisa teaches that in Reshus ha'Yachid, even if there are many Sefekos, it is Tamei!

Answer: (It was in Reshus ha'Yachid.) The Safek that a weasel or Bardelas dragged it is [very] common and close to Vadai.

Support: We wanted to say that this Safek [that a weasel or Bardelas dragged it] removes [concern for] a Vadai [Isur].

Explanation #1 (Ri): We must say that the feet of the Kohen were in Reshus ha'Rabim. If his feet were in Reshus ha'Yachid, we should be concerned lest they dragged it opposite (i.e. under) his feet, and the Tum'ah breaks through and goes up;

You are forced to say that there is a cubic Tefach in their holes, for if there is, how does dragging it help? A cubic Tefach brings the Tum'ah!

Explanation #2: Also we can say that the feet of the Kohen were in Reshus ha'Yachid, and it is a common Safek that they dragged it and ate it.

Explanation: The text is with a Samech. He was Mosek olives.