Explanation: According to Reish Lakish, it means as follows. Anything swallowed that cannot leave even with difficulty through Tzafon, is Tahor. If not, i.e. it can leave, even with difficulty, it is Tamei regarding a Tum'ah mid'Oraisa;

If so, for Dam Tevusah, which is mid'Rabanan, even if it leaves with difficulty, it is Tahor.

Now, the Seifa explains and gives the reason for the Reisha. For Tum'ah mid'Oraisa, when it cannot leave, it is Tahor. However, if it can leave with difficulty, it is Tamei;

According to R. Yochanan, who explains like Rav Papa, the Reisha means "if it is laundered and [the Kesem] comes out in Stam laundering, it is Tamei, for it is normal to be adamant about it, since it comes out easily;

If not, it is Tahor, even if it leaves via Tzafon, for it is not normal to be adamant about it, since it does not come out through Stam laundering.

[The Seifa] brings "everything swallowed" to give the reason for the Reisha. Since it cannot leave at all, even if he is explicitly adamant, his adamancy has no effect, for Batla Daito to that of normal people, who are not normally adamant;

Also in the Reisha, it can leave with difficulty, but it does not come out through Stam laundering. It is Tahor, for people are not normally adamant. This is like Rav Papa answered, whenever it cannot leave...

Support: Now, Rav Papa does not contradict what was said above. Rather, he comes to answer that it means as follows. If it can leave with difficulty, and he was adamant to remove it, it is Tamei. Above we said that it is Tahor. This is when he is not adamant to remove it.

Implied question: Rav Papa needed to say only "there, he was adamant"!

Answer: He comes to teach the argument of R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish. They argue about when he was not adamant and it can leave with difficulty. Reish Lakish is Metamei, and R. Yochanan is Metaher.

Explanation: "Nim v'Lo Nim" is at the beginning of sleep. Tir v'Lo Tir is at the end of sleep, when he awakens;

Nim v'Lo Nim - now at midnight, he begins to sleep. Tir v'Lo Tir - he slept in the first half [of the night], and now when midnight comes, he began to awaken. He is awake, but not fully awake.

Observation: Also in Pesachim (120b) regarding "if they dozed [while eating Korban Pesach], they resume eating", the Gemara used this expression Nim v'Lo Nim Tir v'Lo Tir. We can explain it similarly.

Question: In Shabbos (90a) it says regarding urine that soured, it is [after] 40 days. This implies that it does not sour beforehand!

Answer #1: Some texts say "until 40 days." According to this, it is fine. We can say that from three days until 40, it helps [to launder a Kesem].

Answer #2: Some texts say "Ben Arba'im." It refers to a baby 40 days old.

Question: Below, [R. Yochanan] asked whether it is of a child or old person!

Answer: It means, is it only of a child, or even of an old person? This is unlike Rashi, who says that [urine of] an old person is better.

Support: He said also "of a man, or of a woman?" We cannot say that [he was unsure] if only a woman's helps, for he said "child or old person" in the masculine! Also in Shabbos, "Ben Arba'im" is masculine].

Question: Why didn't we bring here the Beraisa in Shabbos of a baby 40 days old and other matters that the Beraisa there elaborates more than here, and here it elaborates about the law of urine more than there! (Maharsha points out that in our texts, the Beraisa there does not elaborate.)

Answer: The Beraisa there discusses the first Tana's words. He said [that the Shi'ur to be liable for Hotza'ah on Shabbos] is enough to launder a small garment. There, it helps only if it is [at least] 40 days;

Here, we discuss a Kesem. It helps if it is [at least] three days.

All the matters there do not apply here. Therefore, we do not bring that Beraisa here.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is to stretch.

Rebuttal and Explanation #2: It seems that it is like Rashi explained in Shabbos (136a) regarding [a baby that] Pihak and died - it yawned;

This is like it says in Brachos (24b), that Rebbi yawned and put his hand under his chin.

Explanation: This is sneezing.

Explanation #1: In the Gemara (63b), Rashi explained that "Gosah" is yawning.

Rebuttal and Explanation #2: Rather, it is belching. Also Gihak in Tefilah is belching.

Support: The Aruch says that it is a noise that comes from the throat due to a heavy food. This is belching. It does not seem that it is hiccoughs.

Explanation: In all of these Vestos, she yawns or sneezes for an hour or two at the time she normally sees. However, due to yawning or sneezing once, she does not fix a Veses.

Source: He distinguishes between the beginning of the Veses and the end. In one yawn or sneeze, "beginning and end' do not apply.

Explanation: This is like Rebbi, who says that a Chazakah is through two occurrences;

"For those that Chachamim did not list [in our Mishnah] three" [is also like Rebbi]. Since it is not an absolute Veses, Rebbi agrees that we require three times. We hold like this.

Explanation: Since they are through an action, it is not an absolute Veses, and it is not included in our Mishnah.

Question: Why didn't we say also if she jumped and saw? Also this is through an action!

Answer: She does not fixed a Veses through jumping alone, like it says above (11a), that any [Veses] she fixes due to Ones, even several times, she did not fix a Veses.

Distinction: However, if she ate garlic and saw, this is not considered Ones, like the exertion of jumping, for the sighting does not come through exertion, rather, by itself.

Inference: This connotes that [Shmuel] said "this [is R. Shimon ben Gamliel's opinion], but [Shmuel] disagrees, since he did not say "but Rebbi says..." (Rather, he called the opposing opinion "Chachamim", for the Halachah follows it.)

Implied question: If so, it is difficult, for below, regarding skipping [there is the same interval of days between sightings], we establish Shmuel like R. Shimon ben Gamliel!

Answer: Rav and Shmuel argue about our Mishnah. (Shmuel establishes our Mishnah like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, but he does not rule like him.)

Observation: According to what the Gemara initially said, that [Rav and Shmuel argue] like Rebbi and R. Shimon ben Gamliel, we must say that [Shmuel said] "this [is R. Shimon ben Gamliel's opinion]", and [Shmuel] holds like him, like we answer in Bava Kama (37b).

Implied question: According to R. Yehudah, it would be feasible to teach the entire day, like is proven in the Seifa, that he forbids the entire day!

Answer: It was taught in two clauses due to R. Yosi (who permits after the Veses).

Explanation: This means the entire sixth hour.

Explanation (Rashi): This is the end of six hours, that from then shadows lean to the west.

Implied question (Rashbam): It says in Pesachim (58a) that the earliest time for Minchah is six and a half hours and onwards!

Answer (Rashbam): That is because we do not know well the Shi'ur of six hours (when it is), but according to letter of the law, it is from the beginning of the seventh hour (after six hours finished).

Pesak: However, also regarding a Veses, she is forbidden until half of the seventh hour, i.e. from Minchah and onwards.