Explanation: Granted, if the reason is because a man does not want his wife to be disgraced in Beis Din, there is no disgrace for a man to go. He normally goes to Beis Din whenever he needs.

Explanation #1: He can remove it through washing. We did not know yet that one can remove it through wine vinegar;

This (sweat) is not a Pesul for Kohanim. Avodah is for a short time. He washes it, and it goes away [for the duration of the Avodah].

Explanation #2: "It passes" means that it is curable.

Objection: How could we establish [Mezuham in] the Mishnah to be when it does not pass? It says "whether it is fixed, or passes"!

Defense (of Explanation #2): "It passes" means that it is curable, and even if he did not cure it, he is Kosher for Avodah, for it is not so repulsive;

"Mezuham" is sweat that cannot be removed.

Implied question: It says "whether it is fixed, or passes"! (This implies that "Mezuham" can be removed.)

Answer: It refers to all the Mumim taught there. It means whether they are fixed, i.e. those taught in that Mishnah, and whether those that pass that are taught there, e.g. drops in the eye.

Explanation (Ri): R. Meir does not argue about visible Mumim. He agrees that [her husband] cannot claim [Mekach Ta'os], for he saw, and was appeased, like the Stam Gemara says;

Also, if he argues about visible Mumim, then we find Simpon (a blemish that invalidates the sale) regarding slaves, regarding visible Mumim, according to R. Meir! (Above (57b), the Gemara said that there is no Simpon regarding slaves, i.e. according to everyone.)

[R. Meir] argues only about when there is a bathhouse in the city.

Question: According to Rav, who establishes the entire Mishnah of "he did Nisu'in, and found Nedarim on her" to be when he was Mekadesh with a Tenai, how can we distinguish between covert Mumim and visible Mumim? He stipulated "on condition that she has no Mumim"!

Answer (Rashba): When he stipulated, he did not stipulate about visible Mumim, for he saw them and was appeased;

Rather, he intended for Mumim that he did not see.

When there is a bathhouse in the city, we should say that he stipulated only about Mumim that cannot be checked through the bathhouse, such as bad breath and epilepsy at fixed times;

He refers both to [Mumim found in] the father's Reshus and the husband's Reshus. He teaches that he cannot claim, i.e. even if the husband brings a proof, it does not help him at all (for he saw, and was appeased).

Explanation (R. Chananel): This is an expression of an oath.

Question: If so, why did the Reisha discuss when she is still in her father's Reshus, and the Seifa when she entered her husband's Reshus?

It should have taught oppositely. The Reisha would be a bigger Chidush, and the Seifa would be a bigger Chidush!

Answer (Rashba): It taught specifically like this. Just like the Reisha and Seifa argue like the argument of R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua, [the Reisha and Seifa] argue also about the following;

The Tana of the Reisha holds that only when she is still in her father's Reshus, [her father] must bring a proof, but once she entered her husband's Reshus, he need not bring a proof;

Even if her husband will bring witnesses that the Mumim were there before Eirusin, since she married, there is a Chazakah that a man does not drink a cup (have Nisu'in) without checking it [first]. He saw, and was appeased.

The Tana of the Seifa holds that even though she entered her husband's Reshus, and one could say that there is a Chazakah that a man does not drink a cup...

[We do not say so. Rather,] when her husband brings a proof, it is a Mekach Ta'os, for a man is not appeased with Mumim.

Explanation: Even though there is another Chazakah against Chezkas ha'Guf, like here, that without Chezkas Mamon, there is another Chazakah, to establish her in Chezkas Penuyah (she was single);

Only when there is Chezkas Mamon, Chezkas ha'Guf is not stronger than Chezkas Mamon;

However, when there is no Chezkas Mamon, Chezkas ha'Guf is stronger than other Chazakos;

If there is no other Chazakah against it, what is the Chidush? Obviously we follow Chezkas ha'Guf, since nothing contradicts it!

Also in the case we bring, there is a Chazakah against it, like I will explain.

Question (Ri): How can we say that if not for Chezkas Mamon here, R. Yehoshua would follow Chezkas ha'Guf?

This is one [Chazakah] against two, for we should establish her in Chezkas Penuyah!

Suggestion: Just the contrary! We should establish her in Chezkas Shleimah (complete), and say that the Mum came [only] now!

Rejection: The Mum is in front of you. (This weakens the Chazakah that there was no Mum.)

In such a case, we count this like two weaknesses, regarding a Mikveh that was measured and found to be lacking;

We say that all Taharos that relied on the Mikveh in the past, whether in Reshus ha'Yachid or Reshus ha'Rabim, are Teme'im, for we can say "establish the Tamei in his Chazakah, and say that he did not immerse" (the Mikveh was Chaser);

Suggestion: We should establish the Mikveh in its Chazakah, and say that it was not Chaser!

Rejection: It is Chaser in front of you.

Answer (Rashba): Chezkas Penuyah is not considered a Chazakah at all compared to Chezkas ha'Guf.

Question (R. Tam): What is the reason for Rabanan, who say Tamei? Why don't we follow Chazakah?

In Chulin (10b), we ask what is the source to establish a matter in its Chazakah, and we bring a source from a verse!

Answer (R. Tam): Here we discuss one who already became Tamei [Muchlat]. He had one Nega beforehand, [e.g.] Shechin or Michvah, and was Muchlat due to it. Before he became Tahor from it, a Safek [about another Nega] arose;

After he became Tamei from the first, only this Safek remains.

Support: In Nazir (65b), it connotes that we discuss one who already became Tamei [Muchlat];

Now, we bring a proper proof that R. Yehoshua follows Chezkas ha'Guf. We establish him in the Chazakah that he did not have a Nega, even though there is a Chazakah against it, to establish him in Chezkas Tum'ah.

We would have said similarly above, if not for Chezkas Mamon.

Question: How can we learn from there? There is different, for a verse is written, like we learn in Nazir from "Letaharo Oh Letam'o" - the verse began with Taharah [to teach that we are Metaher a Safek]!

Answer: We learn from there.

Question: Why doesn't R. Yehoshua follow Chezkas ha'Guf regarding [a Penuyah] who was seen speaking (secluded, or had Bi'ah) with a man, or was pregnant (above, 13a)?

Answer: [Chachamim] made a stringency for lineage [not to rely on Chezkas ha'Guf].

Explanation: He expounds from the fact that it says "Se'ar Lavan ba'Baheres", which connotes that the Baheres (Nega) came first.

Explanation: R. Tam says that the text says "Rabah", due to the episode with Rabah bar Nachmeni in Bava Metzi'a (86a. The Heavenly academy argued about this, and decided that Rabah would decide the matter. He ruled that it is Tahor.)

Implied question: Why can't we say "establish her father's Reshus in its Chazakah"?

Answer: It has a Re'usa (weakness), since [the Mumim] were found in his Reshus. Therefore, we follow Chezkas Mamon.

Distinction: When she says "I was raped after Eirusin", there the Re'usa was found in her husband's Reshus. He married her, and did not find Besulim in her;

Therefore, she is believed according to R. Gamliel, for there is no Re'usa in the Chazakah or her father's Reshus;

The case is, it is possible that she was raped after Nisu'in.

Proof: If it was in a way that surely she was not raped after Nisu'in, even though she entered her husband's Reshus, the Chazakah of her father's Reshus was weakened, since surely she was raped in her father's Reshus.