Explanation: it says in Shabbos (62b) that this is prone to cause poverty.

Alternative text: Some text say here "he has Bi'ah naked", and so it says in Vayikra Rabah;

The reason [why Hash-m hates him] is because one must be modest at the time of Bi'ah, like it says in Nedarim (20a). (Ya'avetz - if one insists that they have Bi'ah while clothed, we force him to divorce her and pay a Kesuvah (Kesuvos 58a). However, they should be covered with a sheet.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [He jingled] bells hanging on the canopy [above his bed] to expel his household.

Rebuttal (R. Tam): This is immodest!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): The text of R. Chananel and the Aruch is correct. He expelled Gazei, [i.e. a kind of] bee, like it says in Bechoros (7b) "honey of Gazin and wasps."

Support: This is like Abaye, who chased away flies, and Rava, who expelled mosquitoes.

Explanation: We discuss at night, or in a dark place. In a place of light, even not in front of their slaves is forbidden!

Explanation #1: [He is a Chasid, for through burning the nails,] there is no concern lest they become exposed (like there is if he buries them).

Explanation #2 (Aruch): Burning the nails harms the person himself;

The same applies to anything that comes from man, like it says in Shabbos (75b) regarding blood of a Nidah. She would not save it for a cat [to drink], since this would weaken her;

Therefore he is a Chasid, for he is stringent to burn them, even though this harms him.

Explanation: Therefore, they were mentioned for praise.

Implied question: Beis Shamai say that she needs two Edim for every Bi'ah, and Beis Hillel say that two Edim suffice for the entire night, and she looks at them the next day!

Answer: In any case they agree that if she wants to look at them at night by the light of a lamp, she may.

Question: In Shevuos (6b), regarding [appearances of Tzara'as] "Seis" is like white wool. The secondary appearance to it is like an egg shell. It explains that [respectively, these are] like a linen robe and Sachakeha (after it is worn out).

Inference: A new [robe] is whiter than an old one!

Answer #1: There, it is a robe that is not normally laundered. Here we discuss a cloak or something similar that is constantly laundered.

Answer #2: There we discuss regarding importance, like those mentioned above [there], e.g. Shevor Malka (the Persian king) and the Reish Galusa.

Implied question: R. Tam explains that less than k'Beitzah is not Mekabel Tum'ah. If so, it is not precise to say that it is full of mustard [seeds, for they do not become Tamei], rather, [it should say that it is] full of eggs!

Answer: It mentioned mustard [seeds] because mid'Rabanan, they are Mekabel Tum'ah.

Explanation: "Proz" in Greek means in front of. "Dor" is an expression of residence.

Alternative text: Some texts say "Prozdod" with a Dalet.

Inference: Blood of the Aliyah is Tahor, even if it has the appearance of Tamei blood.

Proof: If [blood of] the Aliyah does not have one of them four kinds of Tamei blood, if so, why is blood of the Prozdor a Safek? We should see whether or not it is one of them four kinds of Tamei blood!

It would be difficult to say that we discuss when it was lost.

Explanation #1: The reason [why blood of the Aliyah is Tahor] is because it says mi'Makor Dameha" - only blood of the Makor, i.e. the Cheder.

Explanation #2: It says "Dameha" - a place where there are many bloods. There is only one kind in the Makor.

Implied question: Our Mishnah also taught that its Safek is Tamei! (Why is this difficult for Rav Huna?)

Answer: It means that its Safek is Tamei, like it teaches explicitly "for the Chazakah is that it is from the Makor."

Possibility #1: He could have answered that [blood] was found on the floor of the Prozdor, like we answer below regarding R. Chiya.

Possibility #2: [He could not answer that blood was found on] the floor of the Prozdor, for he would not call this a Safek.

Explanation: According to your words, that you are concerned for Shinuy (a change from the normal course for blood to follow), why is it Vadai Tamei? We should be concerned lest Izdakrah (she abruptly straightened up, and the blood was thrown backwards), and it came from the Aliyah!

Question #1: Just the contrary! Since from the conduit and outside, even though it can come to there normally from the Aliyah, we are concerned for blood of the Makor, which is further, and it can come from there only through bowing, [even so we are concerned] because most blood comes from the Makor...

Therefore, we should be Metamei Vadai from the conduit and inside, and attribute to blood of the Makor, which is the majority and closer than blood of the Aliyah!

Question #2: In Bava Basra (24a) R. Chanina taught that if [one possible source is] the majority, and [another possible source is] closer, we attribute to the majority;

It is proven there that R. Chanina discusses even regarding a closeness that is Muchach (i.e. strongly suggests that it is the source), and Abaye said that our Mishnah teaches like R. Chanina. "If it was found in the Prozdor, the Safek is Tamei, for the Chazakah is that it is from the Makor", even though the Aliyah is closer;

What proof does he bring? According to the version that we follow a concern, we do not at all follow a majority more than closeness!

Rather, both of these are a Safek, and even from the conduit and inside, in which case the blood from the Makor is the majority, and it comes to there without a Shinuy, we are concerned for blood of the Aliyah, which is the minority, and it cannot come there unless Izdakrah (she abruptly straightened up).

And according to the version that we follow Chazakah, we are Metaher from the conduit and outside, and we are not concerned for the majority of blood from the Makor;

The reason why we are Metamei from the conduit and inside, is not due to a majority alone. Rather, it is because it comes from the Makor without a Shinuy, and the closeness of the Aliyah is not Muchach at all, for we are not concerned lest Izdakrah!

Answer: It seems that all the Amora'im in our Sugya discuss the roof of the Prozdor. This is the situation. The roof of the Prozdor from the conduit and inside is high and inclined and rises. [Blood] cannot come to there from the Aliyah unless Izdakrah;

From the Makor it cannot come to the roof of the Prozdor unless she bowed very low. This is a greater Shinuy than Izdakrah [to enable blood] of the Aliyah [to get there], for the [end of] the conduit through which the blood of the Makor goes out to the Prozdor is towards the floor of the Prozdor (it is far from the roof);

However, from the conduit and outside [the roof] slants and descends. [Blood] comes to there from the Aliyah normally, and [blood comes to there] from the Makor only through a greater Shinuy than [is needed to go from the Makor to] from the conduit and inside.

Support: Now, it is a proper question. What is the difference, that from the conduit and outside it is a Safek, even though from the Makor it comes to there only through a very great Shinuy, and from the Aliyah it comes normally...

Rather, because she bowed, it is common [that it could come from the Makor. This implies that] if it would not be common, it would be Vadai Tahor. Even so, [now that it is common,] we do not want to follow the majority, to say that it is Vadai Tamei;

Also from the conduit and inside, I can say that Izdakrah. Since bowing is common, also Izdakrah is common. Why is it Vadai Tamei?

Even though most blood is from the Makor, we should not follow the majority, just like from the conduit and outside, which is not Vadai Tamei, even though it is common that she bows!

Explanation: Rather, Abaye said that if you follow concern, because bowing is common, like I explained, both are a Safek;

If you follow Chazakah, and not concern, because bowing is not common, from the conduit and outside is Vadai Tahor;

Even so, from the conduit and inside, even though bowing is not common, is Vadai Tamei, for no matter what you will say (whether it is from the Aliyah or the Makor), it came through a Shinuy. Either she bowed, or Izdakrah. We should say that the blood came from the Makor, because the Chazakah is that blood comes from the Makor.

Observation: In Bava Basra, [Abaye] properly proves from this version that we follow Chazakah, which is primary, like the words of our Mishnah connote "the Chazakah is that it is from the Makor"...

[From this he proves] that if [one possible source is] the majority, and [another possible source is] closer, we attribute to the majority, even for a closeness that is Muchach, for from the conduit and inside is Vadai Tamei, for we follow the majority of blood, which is from the Makor;

This is even though the closeness of the Aliyah is Muchach, for it comes [to there] from the Aliyah through a smaller Shinuy than is needed to come from the Makor, like I explained.

Question: Since it is Safek Tum'ah, in Reshus ha'Rabim it is Vadai Tahor, and in Reshus ha'Yachid it is Vadai Tamei, and we burn for it!

Answer: I explained above (2a DH Masnisin) that from Sotah we do not learn Tum'ah that comes from sightings of her body, [only of touching,] therefore in every place (Reshus ha'Rabim and Reshus ha'Yachid) it is Safek.

Question: This requires investigation below (71a) regarding Dam Tevusah (it did not come out when he was dying). It is a Safek whether it came out in his lifetime, or after death. In Reshus ha'Yachid the Safek is Tamei, and in Reshus ha'Rabim the Safek is Tahor!

Question: Since we do not learn from Sotah, we should establish the woman in her Chazakah, and be Metaher even in Reshus ha'Yachid!

Answer: [We do not] because blood of the Makor is exceedingly common, like it says in Bava Basra (24a) "do you discuss a majority that is common?";

[Her] Chazakah and closeness [of the Aliyah] against this majority is considered only an even Safek.