Pesak: R. Chananel rules like R. Shimon, that within the Perek is like before the Perek, like we conclude in Yotzei Dofen (46a), and the one who holds that within the time is like after the time, was refuted above.

Consequence: Due to this, he ruled also that the Halachah does not follow Rava, who says that there is a Chazakah that she brought Simanim, for R. Shimon, like whom we rule, holds unlike Rava.

Support: In Bava Basra (156a), Rav Nachman said that we check for Chalitzah and Mi'un.

Rebuttal: This is wrong. Even if the Halachah follows R. Shimon regarding this, that within the Perek is like before the Perek, the Halachah does not follow him regarding that he disagrees with Rava's Chazakah;

One does not depend on the other. Rava himself ruled above that within the time is like before the time!

Implied question: [If so] why does the Gemara establish the Beraisa like R. Shimon, who holds unlike Rava? The Beraisa could very well be like R. Yehudah, and like Rava!

Answer: This is not a proof from the Gemara. It resolves the Beraisa in every case (also according to R. Yehudah)!

Rejection of support: [There is no support from Rav Nachman, for] we do not hold like Rav Nachman against Rava, since Rava is Basra (later);

Further, also Rava can establish Rav Nachman's teaching, that we check for Mi'un, within the Perek, when there is no Chazakah;

Alternatively, [he can establish it] after the Perek, and we check. If we do not find hairs, she may do Mi'un, for we are concerned lest they fell out only if he had Bi'ah after the time, and Rava discusses when he had Bi'ah.

Pesak: Cases occur every day, and we rely on women to check after the Perek. This is unlike R. Shimon.

Assertion (R. Tam): Even if within the Perek is like before the Perek, the Halachah does not follow R. Shimon, for you are forced to say that within the time and within the Perek are not the same matter;

Proof #1: If they were the same matter, why did we refute above R. Yochanan and R. Yehoshua ben Levi, who say that within the time is like after the time? Tana'im argue about this here!

Proof #2: Also, above we call it "Zman", and here we call it "Perek"!

Proof #3: Also, "Perek" connotes adulthood, like "one who marries off [his children] near the time of their Perek" (Yevamos 62b).

Proof #4: In Shabbos (80b) it says "Benos Yisrael who reached their Perek, but did not reach years", i.e. they brought two hairs, but they did not reach [12] years.

Explanation (R. Tam): They argue here about the last day of 12 years and one day for a female, or the day of 13 years and one day for a male;

That day is called within the Perek, for according to R. Yehudah the time to bring hairs is from the beginning of the day, and according to R. Shimon it is from the end [of the day],

We [normally] hold like R. Yehudah against R. Shimon, [like it says] in Eruvin (46b).

Consequence: If a minor Yavam or Yevamah come to do Chalitzah, l'Chatchilah it is good to check them before the Perek, [to see] if they have hairs;

Also, [we check] after the Perek, and if they are the same [hairs] that were before the Perek, we wait until they bring other hairs;

However, regarding a big Yavam or Yevamah (i.e. past 13 or 12 years), it is impossible to clarify (if their current hairs were there before the Perek), they properly do Chalitzah if they have hairs. We need not be concerned lest they were there before the Perek, like I explained above.

If a Yevamah has large breasts, we need not check for hairs, for we said above that it is impossible for the upper Siman to come before the lower Siman.

Implied question: It says in Yoma (2a) that all actions [of Parah Adumah] are with Kelim of dung, stone or earth [which are never Mekabel Tum'ah]!

Answer: That is when they sprinkle [Mei Chatas] on the Kohen who will burn it. They were stringent there, since they were lenient to be Metamei him so he will [immerse and immediately] slaughter it when he is a Tevul Yom, to disprove the Tzedukim.

Explanation (R. Chananel): "Gistera" means "fragment" in Greek.

Assertion: A fragment of a Kli Cheres is Tamei due to "Gistera" only if he designated it;

Even a full [Kli] that was punctured to the point of Kones Mashkeh (if it is put in liquid, the liquid will enter through the hole) is Tahor, until one designates it for food. All the more so, if it was totally broken, the fragments need designation!

Question: A Mishnah, brought in Chulin (54b), says that small Klei Cheres - they, their bottoms and walls, their Shi'ur [to receive Tum'ah] is [if they hold] enough to anoint a Katan, [if the Kli initially held] up to a Log (the volume of six eggs. If they initially held] between a Log and a Se'ah, the Shi'ur is a Revi'is...

Since we discuss through designation, even if it broke from a big Kli, their Shi'ur should be enough to anoint a Katan!

Answer: It is not normally to designate a small fragment from a big Kli. Batlah Da'ato Etzel Kol Adam (we are not concerned for his opinion. The Halachah is based on normal people.)

Question: A Tosefta in Kelim (7:10) teaches that the bottom of mats and the bottom of Kelim, we do not fill them [with water for Mei Chatas] or be Mekadesh [water] in them;

If he smoothed them and made them a Kli, one may be Mekadesh in them. R. Meir says so;

Chachamim say, a Kli that once became Tahor, it is never Tamei.

Implied suggestion: When it needs to be fixed, it does not receive Tum'ah [ever again].

Rejection: A Mishnah in Kelim (5:8) says that if one cut an oven into layers, each less than four Tefachim, each is Tahor. If he smeared it with plaster, it receives Tum'ah from when he heats it to bake soft cakes;

Observation: Fixing it helps [for it to receive Tum'ah again]!

It is unreasonable to say that this is unlike R. Meir and unlike Rabanan!

Answer: "It never receives Tum'ah" refers to fragments less than the Shi'ur explicit in Chulin (55a). Because they are inferior, fixing does not help for them;

The case of an oven discusses when through fixing, it is like it was initially.

Implied question: In Chulin (107a), it says that if there is a hole in an irrigation pipe that is Kones Mashkeh, one may immerse his hands in the pipe, since it is considered connected to the river (water leaks back into the river).

Answer #1: That is not the same Kones Mashkeh as here. There we discuss when the hole is so big that the water flows, and it (the river) is connected to the hands through the flow, even though regarding Tevilah it is not considered connected;

Here Kones Mashkeh means that [water] comes out drop after drop, like it says below.

Answer #2: Perhaps that Kones Mashkeh is like here. Also there, we bring the Kones Mashkeh of here;

Citation (107a - Rava): If a Kli was punctured so that it is Kones Mashkeh, we do not wash hands from it.

Inference: They are the same [Shi'ur of Kones Mashkeh]. Even though it is not Nitzuk (a flow), it is connected regarding Netilas Yadayim. Also Rashi did not mention Nitzuk there.

Observation: In all the teachings of Amora'im, Mishnayos and Beraisos, Kones Mashkeh is mentioned only regarding Kli Cheres.

Also in Shabbos (95b), it says that there are five Shi'urim [of holes to be Metaher] Kli Cheres. (One of them is a hole that is Kones Mashkeh);

Inference: All those Shi'urim apply only to Kli Cheres, but not to Kli Etz!

Pesak: In any case, Rava's teaching in Chulin (107a) that if a Kli was punctured so that it is Kones Mashkeh, we do not wash hands from it, we should be stringent about all Kelim that were punctured k'Kones Mashkeh, not to wash hands from it;

This is because he did not mention there Kli Cheres. He said Stam "Kli".

Explanation #1: In Bechoros (45a), some explain that this is a decree [to be Metamei an extra finger] not counted [with the other fingers] on the hand due to one that is counted;

However, they did not decree [Tum'ah like] Ohel ha'Mes. They made a Heker (indication, that it is not mid'Oraisa) lest people burn Terumah and Kodshim due to it.

Explanation #2: Some say that [the Tum'ah] is due to a bone [at least] the size of a barley seed.

Question: According to this, why is it Metamei when one touches the flesh, and he does not touch the bone?

Suggestion: The flesh is a Yad (handle) or Shomer (protection) for the bone.

Rejection: Rav taught in Chulin (118b) that there is no Yad for less than a k'Zayis, and no Shomer for less than the size of a bean;

"Rabbeinu ha'Gadol" here is Rav!

Answer #1: Chachamim decreed due to times when there is a bone the size of a bean. (Then, the flesh is a Shomer.)

Answer #2: They decreed about touching the flesh due to touching the bone, or they decreed about touching due to carrying.

Explanation: This is from a Kal va'Chomer from small flasks. (They do not receive Tum'ah from a Zav, for the opening is too small to stick his finger inside, but they receive Tum'as Mes.) In Bava Kama (25b) we explained this.

Question: What was difficult? Many Klalos (general rules) are taught in our [Perek, in the] Mishnah, even though they are taught [also] elsewhere!

It was taught (below, 50a) "anything obligated in Pe'ah is obligated in Ma'aser [but there are things obligated in Ma'aser but exempt from Pe'ah]", and we know this from a Mishnah in Pe'ah (1:4)!

It says "anything that is picked at once, and it is stored and lasts [one must leave Pe'ah from it]", and this [condition] was not taught regarding Ma'aser!

Similarly, (below, 51b) we taught "anything obligated in Reishis ha'Gez (first shearings of sheep) is obligated in Matanos (one who slaughters a Chulin animal gives the foreleg, jaw and stomach to a Kohen)" and we know this from a Mishnah in Chulin (135a)!

Similarly, (below, 51b) "anything that has Bi'ur, it has Shevi'is" we learn from a Mishnah in Shevi'is (7:1,2)!

Answer: We ask only according to Rav Yehudah. Why did he need to say "it comes to include a Mamzer" here and there?

Support: This is why we do not say that the Mishnah in Sanhedrin (36b) comes to include a Chalal, who is Kosher for monetary cases and Pasul for capital cases;

The Mishnah there says that one is Kosher for capital cases only if he may marry into Kehunah. (We say that Chalalim may not marry into Kehunah, even though a Chalal may marry a Kohenes, because Chalalos may not marry Kohanim.)

Rather, we do not challenge the Mishnah, only [we challenge] Rav Yehudah. We could not answer for Rav Yehudah that one comes to include a Chalal...

[He need not teach this,] for the words of the Seifa of the Mishnah 'monetary cases are the same [as capital cases', i.e.] "only those who may marry into Kehunah" connotes that he is Kosher for monetary cases, and at least we establish it for a Chalal, who is Kosher [for them. All others forbidden to Kehunah are more Pasul than Chalalim.]

Assertion: We must say that Rav Yehudah comes to teach that a convert and Mamzer are Kosher for monetary cases. We know that they are Pesulim for capital cases from the Mishnah there.

The text says here like some Seforim say in Sanhedrin (36b) "had he taught a convert, one might have thought that this is because he is proper to enter the Kahal (marry a Yisraelis)...

Had it taught a Mamzer, [one might have thought that] this is because he comes (was conceived) from and Kosher drop [of semen], but a convert is not [Kosher for monetary cases].

The text does not say oppositely, like it was in Seforim "had it taught a convert, one might have thought that because he comes from a Pasul drop, he is Pasul for capital cases."

This is because Rav Yehudah does not come to teach that they are Pesulim for capital cases, like I explained.

Question: Why doesn't it say that it comes to include a Ba'al Mum, who is Pasul for capital cases?

We learn this in Sanhedrin (36b) and Yevamos (101a), just like Beis Din are clean in righteousness (they are Tzadikim), they must be clean from any blemish!

Answer: The Mishnah discusses only Pesulim of lineage.

Support: In Sanhedrin (27b), we ask that an Ed Zomem in a capital cases is Kosher for monetary cases, and Pasul for monetary cases, and we answer that [the Mishnah] discusses [only] Pesulim of lineage.

Inference: He is Kosher even though his mother is not from Yisrael.

Question: In Yevamos (45b), we say that Rava was Machshir Rav Mari bar Rachel and appointed him among officers of Bavel. Since his mother was from Yisrael, we apply to him "mi'Kerev Achecha"!

Answer: Here we discuss to judge a fellow convert, like it says in Yevamos (102a) "mid'Oraisa, a convert can judge his colleague. If his mother was from Yisrael, he can judge even Yisrael;

This is unlike Rashi explained there, that regarding capital cases a convert can judge his colleague, but regarding monetary cases, he can judge even Yisrael.

Question: In Kidushin (76b), regarding the Gemara of one whose ancestors were established [to have proper lineage, it says that if a woman's ancestors were judges, a Kohen need not check before marrying her]. This implies that we do not establish judges of Pasul lineage;

The Gemara asks a contradiction from "everyone is Kosher [to judge monetary cases, but not everyone is fit to judge capital cases], and Rav Yehudah said that 'everyone' come to include a Mamzer.

What was difficult? We should say that this is only to judge a Mamzer like himself, just like a convert!

Answer #1: If here we discuss a convert whose mother was from Yisrael, this would be fine. (We need not answer like above, that a convert can judge a fellow convert.)

Answer #2: A Mamzer is different. Since his father and mother are from Yisrael, we apply to him "mi'Kerev Achecha."

Support: We expound "Alecha (over you)" we require "mi'Kerev Achecha", and a Mamzer is properly called Alecha, for he comes from the seed of Yisrael;

If a Mamzer were Pasul to judge Yisrael, he would be Pasul also to judge his fellow Mamzer.

Implied question: A Tosefta teaches that we establish a king only from people who may marry into Kehunah. (Here we say that a Mamzer is called "mi'Kerev Achecha"!)

Answer: That is mid'Rabanan. Mid'Oraisa, even a Mamzer is considered mi'Kerev Achecha.

Implied question: Why did we make a Tzerichusa (show why he needed to teach) both a convert and a Mamzer, even though they are different, like I explained?

Answer: It made a Tzerichusa because the Mishnah taught Stam, and this distinction is not explicit in it.

Question: In Yevamos (101b) Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah said to Rav Yehudah "[I cannot be on a Beis Din for Chalitzah, for] we learned 'in a Beis Din of Yisrael, and not in a Beis Din of converts'!";

R. Tam used to say that this Rav Shmuel is the son of Rav Yehudah Hindu'ah, [about] whom it says in Kidushin (22b) that he was a convert without heirs. He and his son converted.

Support: The words connote like this. He said "and I am a convert." This connotes that he himself converted.

Summation of question: Since his mother was not a Yisrael, he is disqualified also for other judgments. Why did he need to bring a verse about Chalitzah? Also, why did Rav Yehudah pick him to be a judge?

Answer #1: The Yavam and Yevamah who wanted to do Chalitzah accepted him to be a judge. This is Kosher for monetary cases, and Pasul for Chalitzah, like it says there.

Answer #2: There it refers to Chalitzah of converts. This is not the place to elaborate more.