Implied question: Even without our Mishnah here, we could have challenged Rav [from the other Mishnah]!

Answer: Since we are explaining our Mishnah, we question our Mishnah.

Inference: This is not like Beis Hillel.

Question: In Mo'ed Katan (27b) this is taught regarding other cases of "initially..." taught there, which are Halachic rulings. This implies that in all of them, the Halachah follows like they enacted at the end;

Also in the Tosefta in Nidah (Perek 9), all of them are taught!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): The Beraisa here discusses Kelim that were on her shortly before death. Beis Hillel agree about the Kelim, that they have Tum'ah [due to touching] a Zavah;

However, the argument in our Mishnah is about the Reisha. A Zav and Zavah are Metamei through Even Mesama until the flesh dissolves... lest they faint;

Beis Shamai applies this stringency to all women. They are Metamei through Even Mesama until the flesh dissolves. Beis Hillel argue only about this.

Answer #2: Here, "initially" means that initially they conducted like Beis Hillel, and at the end they enacted that they conduct like Beis Shamai.

Explanation: [It is Metamei] like Dam Nidah, that Mashehu (any amount) is Metamei. Dam of a Mes requires a Revi'is.

Explanation: According to the first Tana, the place is Tamei. This is not so that blood that touches there has Tum'as Maga (it is Metamei one who touches it). Even if the Makor is not Tamei, even less than a Revi'is is Tamei, because it touched a Mes!

Rather, "Kesem" is a proper sighting. The blood has Tum'as Maga and Masa (also one who moves it becomes Tamei), even though it is not considered a sighting after death, since it was in the Makor in her lifetime.

Remark: We cannot be Metamei from the last time the garment was laundered, like a Kesem, for surely the blood came now. Tum'as Kesem helps only so that there is Tum'ah for less than a Revi'is, for Mashehu.

Explanation: The Gemara proceeds to explain that it is a Safek whether all came out in his lifetime, or all after death, or some in his lifetime and some after death.

Remark: The Rashbam says that this was not explained.

Explanation #1 (Ri): The blood still did not cease after death. Perhaps it will increase until there is a full Revi'is.

Even if now there is only the majority [of a Revi'is] after death, they decreed due to a full [Revi'is after death], based on the law of Dam Tevusah.

Distinction: However, when we saw that it ceased after he died, they did not decree on him Dam Tevusah, for surely a Revi'is will not leave after death in what will come out afterwards.

Question: [We say below that] blood dripping into a cavity is Tamei. The Ri was unsure whether or not R. Yehudah requires that it still did not cease, like Rabanan do;

[Perhaps] the drop of death is not precise. Rather, it means that what drips after death, we do not say that every drop is Batel [in the majority that came out in his lifetime]. Rather, they join until there is a Shi'ur to be Metamei;

Rabanan are Metaher, for every drop is Batel.

Or, perhaps [R. Yehudah] does not require that it still did not cease, and the drop that it mentions is precise, since it says below "I can say that the drop is standing on the wood";

Inference: If it fell below, R. Yehudah would be Metamei, even though it is normal that only a little stays on the tree.

Rabanan say that every drop [of blood that came after death] ceased (was not flowing). This is a Chidush. Even if it did not cease, since it merely drips, every drop is Batel.

Explanation #2 (R. Yehudah ben R. Yom Tov): "It still did not cease" flowing. If it would be dripping, it would be Tahor, for every drop is Batel;

The Chachamim afterwards are the first Tana. They explain their reason why they argue with R. Yehudah, because every first amount, [the flow] ceased;

Similarly, R. Yehudah afterwards explains why he argues with R. Shimon, for I say that the drop of death stayed on the wood.

Explanation #3 (R. Tam): "It still did not cease" - after we know that he died, we saw that [the blood] did not cease, and surely there is a minority after death, like he explains;

It is a Safek if most came out in his lifetime, or the minority. He comes to argue with the first Tana, who says that even when there is a Safek that all came out in his lifetime, it is Tamei.

Explanation: R. Yehudah mentioned a cavity because he mentioned dripping, that [the blood] should be together and join. Without a cavity, it does not mix well. Rather, it drips here and here.

Distinction: However, R. Shimon mentioned flowing. Even on the ground it mixes well.

Question: Rava answered according to R. Yehudah in Zevachim (79b) that everywhere, R. Yehudah holds that Min b'Mino is not Batel;

Similarly, in Yevamos (81b) regarding a piece of a Chatas and a piece of Lechem ha'Panim, R. Yehudah said there that it is not Batel;

Rabah bar Rav Huna establishes it there that it melted. [The Gemara] asks if so, "what is R. Yehudah's reason?", and answers that this is like he taught elsewhere, that Min b'Mino is not Batel.

And this that it says there [in Yevamos] that [Min b'Mino] is Batel, this is for a Tum'ah mid'Rabanan. [For Tum'ah] mid'Oraisa, any amount suffices [to forbid];

Note: The Gemara said so only according to Rabanan. Tosfos holds that R. Yehudah argues because he holds that Tum'ah of liquids is mid'Oraisa, but he agrees that Min b'Mino is Batel for a Tum'ah mid'Rabanan (Aruch l'Ner).

Summation of question: If so, also Dam Tevusah, which is mid'Rabanan, should be Batel in a majority!

Answer: Since Tum'ah mid'Oraisa can apply to it, i.e. a Revi'is of blood [that came after death] is Metamei b'Ohel, it is proper to be more stringent about it, and it is not Batel in a majority b'Mino.

Question: From here we should challenge Rav Chisda, who said in Menachos (23a) that a Neveilah is Batel in Shechutah (slaughtered animals), for it depends on the Mevatel, and it is impossible for Shechutah to become Neveilah, so this is like Min b'Eino Mino;

Also here, it is impossible for blood [from before death], the Mevatel, to become Tamei, so the blood of after death should be Batel in it [like Min b'Eino Mino]!

Answer: There, Rav Chisda and R. Chanina argue according to Tana d'Vei R. Chiya. [Tana d'Vei R. Chiya] holds like R. Yehudah, but R. Yehudah himself does not distinguish. He holds that it is never Batel.

Question: It should teach that she may not touch, for we do not need the law itself. Obviously she may pour, for she is not Metamei through moving [the water]!

Note: Mesores ha'Shas changes the text to say "b'Masa" (through carrying). Normally, one cannot bear (hold up) something without moving it; Even Mesama is an exception. In Zavim 5:7, the first Tana says that one who is Mesit (moves) Neveilah becomes Tamei. R. Eliezer says "even ha'Nosei." R. Shimshon explains simply (even if he bears without moving). The Rambam and Bartenura explain "only if he [also] bears." It seems that these Rishonim argue about whether every Stam Masa is included in Heset, or vice-versa. The only Temei'im that are Metamei Taharah through moving it are a Zav and those like him, i.e. a Nidah, Zavah or Yoledes.

Answer: It needs to teach that we are not concerned lest she touch.

Support: We can explain similarly the [Tosefta] in Yadayim (1:12) "anyone who is not Metamei the water b'Masa, is Kosher for Netilas Yadayim."

Explanation #1: Some infer that one who is Metamei b'Masa is not Kosher for Netilas Yadayim [for bread]. They forbid to wash through a Nochri [pouring the water].

Rebuttal: This is wrong. A Nidah and Yoledes wash their hands, even though they are Metamei b'Masa, and all the more so nowadays, that all of us wash with Tamei water!

Explanation #2: Rather, there (the Tosefta) discusses Terumah, or Chulin Al Taharas Terumah. It does not come to teach an inference, rather, for the law itself, that one is Kosher to pour over the hands even if he is Metamei though touching. We are not concerned lest he touch;

Above (the Reisha of the Tosefta) teaches "all are Kosher for Netilas Yadayim, even a Tamei Mes, and even a Bo'el Nidah", for he is not Metamei b'Masa;

Perhaps just like [a Bo'el Nidah] is more lenient than a Nidah, i.e. he is Metamei a Mishkav under himself only like one on top (of a Zav, to become only a Rishon l'Tum'ah), and he may immerse on day seven...

Likewise [a Bo'el Nidah] is more lenient than a Nidah, and he is not Metamei through Heset. (Tosfos is unsure, for the verse says that "her [Tum'as] Nidah is upon him." However, we find that some stringencies of Nidah do not apply to him.)

Question: A Mishnah in Kelim (1:2) says that a Neveilah is higher [more Tamei than a Sheretz and other Avos in Mishnah 1:1], for [a Neveilah] is Metamei through Masa. A Bo'el Nidah is higher than them, for he is Metamei a Mishkav under himself (even if he does not touch it) like one on top [of a Zav]. This shows that also he is Metamei b'Masa!

Answer #1: We can say that even though he is not Metamei b'Masa, it says that he is higher than a Neveilah, since he has one stringency not found in a Neveilah.

Support: Similarly, the Mishnah (Kelim 1:3) taught first [a Merkav, i.e. a seat for riding] is Metamei through Even Mesama, and later (1:4) it teaches "a Mes is higher, which is Metamei b'Ohel", even though it is not Metamei through Even Mesama.

Answer #2 (Ri): It is not difficult, even if [a Bo'el Nidah] is Metamei b'Masa like a Neveilah. This means that he is Metamei a Tahor who carries him;

However, when he carries the Tahor, e.g. here, that he carries the water, he is not Metamei, like it says in Shabbos (83) "this is Heset of a Zav. We do not find like this in the entire Torah, that if Tum'ah outweighs Taharah on a balance scale [and thereby lifts the Taharah], that [the Taharah] becomes Tamei."

Explanation: This is only regarding a Tevul Yom, like we said above (7a), every Vadai [Tum'ah] that is Metamei Chulin, [even doubtful cases are Metamei Tevel l'Chalah].

Source (Tevul Yom 2:1 - Mishnah): Fluids that come from [a Tevul Yom] are like a liquid that he touches. Both of them are not Metamei.

Explanation (R. Tam): They are like a liquid of Terumah [that he touches]. Both of them (fluid of the Tevul Yom, and a Terumah liquid that he touched) are not Metamei Kodshim, but they are Posel Kodshim. (It is disqualified, but it cannot disqualify other Kodshim.)

Distinction: However, [both of them] do not even disqualify Terumah, like it teaches here, that if her saliva or Dam Taharah fell on a Terumah loaf, [the loaf] is Tahor.

Suggestion: Perhaps they are like a Chulin liquid that [the Tevul Yom] touches!

Rejection: A Tevul Yom is not Metamei a Chulin liquid. If so, why does it say "both of them (the fluid of the Tevul Yom, and a Chulin liquid that he touched) are not Metamei?" [The latter] is not even disqualified!

Suggestion: Perhaps they are like a liquid of Chulin Al Taharas ha'Kodesh [that the Tevul Yom touches]!

Rejection: In our Sugya, they retracted to say that it is not like Kodesh (so it is not Posel Kodshim).

Explanation: Counting at night is not considered counting, like the Gemara says "they agree that if she immersed at night, it is not a Tevilah."

Explanation #1: Rashi explained in Nazir (16a) and in Pesachim (81a) that it says according to R. Yosi, who says that part of a day is like the entire day, and a Zavah who saw on her seventh day after Tevilah does not cancel her count;

The Gemara asks there, [according to R. Yosi], how can a woman become a full Zavah [that three days of blood are considered consecutive]? It answers that she spurted blood continuously [from day one until day three]. Alternatively, she saw all of Bein ha'Shemashos on two consecutive days;

Rashi explained that we did not answer that she saw at night, because according to the opinion that part of a day is like the entire day, night is valid for counting. She need not wait for dawn to immerse.

Question #1: [His Perush] is difficult, for if so, our Mishnah is unlike R. Yosi! (R. Simchah mi'Desvi asks that surely our Mishnah is unlike R. Yosi. It says that if a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom immersed on the day after she saw, the Bi'ah and what she touches are Teluyos.)

Question #2: Also the Mishnah in Megilah (20a), which teaches "if any of these were done after dawn, it is Kosher" connotes that counting at night is invalid! (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)