Assertion: The text says "Rabah", for in Bava Metzi'a (86a) it says "who will decide? Rabah bar Nachmeni", and he said Tahor.

Explanation (Rashi): "Keihah" means that it has the law of Keihah (it became weaker).

Question #1: In Nazir (65b), we ask 'perhaps "Keihah" and he was Metamei!' How can we say so? Keihah connotes Tahor!

Question #2: In Nazir (65b), we ask 'perhaps "Keihah" and he was Metamei!' How can we say so? Keihah connotes Tahor!

Answer: With difficulty, we can say that we challenge R. Yehoshua. What is his source that it is Tahor?

Alternative text: R. Chananel's text says R. Yehoshua "Keihah" (with a Kuf). I.e. he took a vote. Keihah is an expression of gathering, like it says "Makhu Akhaisa in the market."

Consequence: Now, we ask there "I should say that he took a vote"! He brought a proof for the first Tana's words.

Question: This is difficult, for if so, what was the answer 'it says "Letaharo"'? How is it proven from this verse that he was Metaher? Perhaps just like Rabanan expound it, also R. Yehoshua expounds it!

Question #1 (R. Tam): What is Rabanan's reason to be Metamei amidst Safek? We should establish the man in his Chazakah, like we hold in Chulin (10b) that mid'Oraisa, we follow Chazakah!

Question #2: Also, why does R. Yehoshua need a verse?

Question #3: In Kesuvos (75b), it says "don't say that R. Yehoshua does not follow Chazakah of the body at all", i.e. He said there regarding "I was raped after I became engaged", that we do not believe her. (We do not say that just like she was born a Besulah, she was a Besulah at the time of Eirusin);

Citation (75b): Rather, this is only when there is Chezkas Mamon, but when there is no Chezkas Mamon, he follows [Chazakah of the body], for the Mishnah says "if a Baheres (appearance of Tzara'as)..."

Summation of question: Why do we need a proof that he follows Chazakah?

Question #4: Tzara'as is different, for a verse reveals [that we follow Chazakah. What was the proof that R. Yehoshua says so also elsewhere?]

Answer #1: It is the way of hair to whiten due to Tzara'as. Therefore, it seems that the Baheres came first.

Support: So is proven in the Tosefta (Nega'im 2:3). It teaches that he told them "even a black hair, in the end his Baheres will turn it [to white]." This shows that it is normal for hair to be stricken due to a Baheres.

Explanation: In Kesuvos (75b), that it says that when there is no Chezkas Mamon, R. Yehoshua follows Chazakah of the body, this is even if there is a Re'usa (a reason not to follow it).

Source: If he did not follow [Chazakah of the body when there is a Re'usa], he would not establish the verse "Letaharo" for a Safek if the Baheres came first, which is very common (that the hair turned white only due to the Baheres, so he is Tamei), and there is a big Re'usa. Rather, he would establish it for a different Drashah, like Rabanan;

Answer #2: Alternatively, he learns from there (Tzara'as) to follow Chazakah of the body even when there is a Re'usa. (If he did not hold in general that we follow Chazakah of the body, he would not expound to teach that we follow it even when there is a Re'usa.)

Remark: R. Tam explained differently. It is not proper to elaborate here.

Explanation: He compares spreading on a person to spreading on garments. "V'Chisesah ha'Tzara'as Es Kol Or ha'Nega me'Rosho v'Ad Raglav" refers to a person's body.

Implied question: The simple meaning of the verse connotes that it refers to the Nega. Above, the verse discusses a Nega that became Tamei through healthy flesh, and regarding this, it says that the Tzara'as covers all the skin of the Nega, from the top of the Nega until its end!

Answer: Here it connotes that it refers to the person, similar to the garment, and so it is proven in several places in Toras Kohanim and Zevachim (49b).

Explanation: This "Yarok" is [yellow] like an Esrog, and not Yarok like leeks (green), for this does not lean to redness;

Stam Yarok is so (yellow), like it says in Sukah (34b) "Yarok like leeks", which connotes that Stam Yarok is not so.

Explanation: He does not hold that there are [only] four. Rather, he derives a fifth from another verse.

Question: Below (33a), regarding a Kusi is Metamei a Mishkav under him like [what is] on top [of a Zav], R. Meir explains that it is because they finish off red blood to yellow. (If she saw yellow blood, she considers it the beginning of Nidah, and immerses seven days later. If she sees red blood five days later, she does not realize that it begins her days of Nidah, and does not wait seven days from the sighting of red blood.)

Inference: He holds that [yellow blood] is Tahor!

Answer #1: Here we discuss [that it is Tamei] mid'Rabanan.

Support: It says "granted, when she sees a [yellow] Kesem on a Kli, it is not Metamei her. However, when she sees yellow [blood] from her body, she should be Temei'ah! (This is mid'Rabanan, for mid'Oraisa, even a red Kesem is not Metamei her!)

Rejection: Really, when she sees from her body, it is Metamei mid'Oraisa. Even so, when she finds it on a Kli, it is not Metamei her, for it is not common for yellow blood to leave her body. We can attribute that it came from elsewhere.

Answer #2: Or, perhaps yellow blood is not precise. Rather, he means blood that is Tahor according to everyone, they finish off red blood to it.

Answer #3: R. Meir's primary reason is like the other reason given. The day she finishes seeing [blood], she counts towards seven [clean days]. The first reason [they finish off red blood to yellow] is according to Rabanan.

Question #1: This is only regarding blood that is Metamei a woman, like the verse connotes, like an orchard that is locked. So Benos Yisrael lock their openings from [intimacy with] their husbands in their days of Nidah;

However, yellow blood, which is Tahor, no! (The verse does not discuss it, so the Gezeirah Shavah cannot teach that it is Machshir!)

Question #2: It connotes that they argue only about yb4, but all agree that Dam Nidah is Machshir;

Since Rabanan do not have the Gezeirah Shavah, what is their source for Dam Nidah [that it is Machshir]?

Answer: In the Tosefta in Shabbos (8:27), it says "what is the source that Dam Nidah is a drink? It says here "v'Taharah mi'Mekor Dameha", and it says below "ba'Yom ha'Hu Yihyeh Makor Niftach l'Veis David ul'Yoshvei Yerushalayim l'Chatas ul'Nidah."

Question #1: Here it connotes that all agree that Dam Nidah is not included in "Dam Chalalim", and in Shabbos (143b) it connotes that a woman's milk is Tamei due to (i.e. we learn it from) blood of her wound!

Citation (143b): No. You cannot learn from a woman's milk, which is Machshir even if it came out unwillingly, for blood of her wound is Machshir!

Explanation (Rashi): Milk was initially blood, like it says above (9a) that blood is Ne'ekar (held back) and becomes milk.

Summation of question: Here we say that even Dam Nidah is not included in "Dam Chalalim", and all the more so milk!

[Poor] Answer #1: Milk comes from primary blood of the body, like blood of a wound, but Dam Nidah does not [come from primary blood of the body].

Question #2: Even without [Question #1], it is difficult there. What did R. Akiva answer Rabanan "I am more stringent about milk than blood, for one who milks for medical reasons, it is Tamei (Machshir), but if one lets blood for medical reasons, it is Tahor!"

Question #3: Why do we need a verse below (55b) to teach that a woman's milk is called a drink, since it says "va'Tiftach Es Nod ha'Chalav va'Tashkehu"? We already know this because blood is Ne'ekar and becomes milk!

Answer: We can say that the Sugya below does not hold like R. Meir, who holds that blood is Ne'ekar...

Explanation: It seems that there it means "no. If you will say regarding a woman's milk, which is Machshir..." I.e. since there is a verse below that milk is Machshir, at least [if it came out] willingly, it is proper that it is Machshir also unwillingly, since we find in a woman something that is Machshir unwillingly, like blood of her wound;

However, an animal, even though its milk is Machshir willingly, [for we learn] from "va'Tiftach Es Nod ha'Chalav", due to this it is not Machshir unwillingly, since we do not find in an animal anything that is Machshir unwillingly, for blood of its wound is Tahor.

[R. Akiva] said [to Chachamim] "I am stringent about milk more than blood, for one who milks for medical reasons..."

Explanation: This that milk is Machshir is not due to the stringency of blood of her wound, for one who lets blood for medical reasons, it is Tahor, and this is willingly. We do not say just like her milk [that leaves] willingly is Tamei, also her blood for medical reasons;

Rather, surely this that a woman's milk is Machshir is because it is an absolute drink, and all the more an animal's milk, for it is special for children and adults (i.e. it is not only for children, like a woman's milk is).

[Chachamim] said back [to R. Akiva] that baskets of olives and grapes disprove this. They are special for children and adults, and [juice that comes out] unwillingly is Tahor.

Support: Now it is not difficult from Dam Nidah, which is not included in Dam Chalalim. Below, with Hash-m's help we will explain that the verses [on 55b] are a mere Asmachta.