Answer #2 (to Question 4:c, Daf 3b): Hillel and Shamai discussed a box that was not checked (for Sheratzim before using it). Chizkiyah and R. Yochanan argue about a checked box.

Chizkiyah says, since it was checked, surely it was not there from the beginning;

R. Yochanan says, perhaps the Sheretz entered right after he checked it.

Question: How can we say that Hillel and Shamai discuss an unchecked box? Hillel compared this to a woman. She checked herself (the last time she did a Bedikah)!

Answer: Since she is prone to see blood, it is as if she is unchecked.

Answer #3 (to Question 4:c): Hillel and Shamai discussed an uncovered box (Sheratzim could fall in). Chizkiyah and R. Yochanan argue about a covered box.

Question: If it is covered, how did a Sheretz fall in?

Answer: He uncovers it when he puts in or takes out of the box. The Sheretz entered when he was not looking.

Question: How can we say that Hillel and Shamai discuss an uncovered box? Hillel compared this to a woman. She is covered! (Rashi - blood does not enter her from anywhere else. Tosfos - her Makor is normally closed. She feels when it opens to let out blood!)

Answer: Since she is prone to see blood, it is as if she is uncovered.

Answer #4 (to Question 4:c): Hillel and Shamai discussed a Sheretz found in a box. Chizkiyah and R. Yochanan argue about a Sheretz found in a different corner of the house.

Objection: They explicitly argue about a box!

Answer: The case is, Taharos were put in and removed from a box, and later the box was moved to a different corner of the house and a Sheretz was found in it:

Chizkiyah holds that we are not Machzik Tum'ah from one place to another. (We assume that the Sheretz fell here, so the Taharos are Tehorim);

R. Yochanan holds that we are Machzik Tum'ah from one place to another. (The Sheretz fell in the first location, so the Taharos are Teme'im.)

Question (against R. Yochanan): We are not Machzik Tum'ah from one place to another!

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If Reuven touched Shimon at night, without knowing whether Shimon was alive at the time, and the next morning he found Shimon dead, Reuven is Tahor;

Chachamim say, he is Tamei, because we assume that Tum'os were previously in the same state they were found in.

(Beraisa): We assume that Tum'os were previously in the same state and place that they were found in.

Answer #1: Perhaps regarding burning we are concerned lest Tum'os were previously in the same state and place (therefore, we do not burn Terumah or Kodshim), but we are Toleh (consider them to be Safek Tamei, for perhaps the Tum'ah was in a different state or place)!

Rejection #1 (Mishnah): If a rusted or broken needle (which is now unusable and therefore Tahor) was found on Taharos, they are Tehorim. We assume that Tum'os were previously in the same state and place that they were found in.

According to R. Yochanan, we should be concerned lest a good (Tamei) needle fell, and later became rusted or broken!

Rejection #2 (Mishnah): If a burnt Sheretz or a worn out rag (which are no longer Tamei) was found on olives, the olives are Tahor, for we assume that Tum'os were previously in the same state that they were found in.

Answer #2: Perhaps we assume that Tum'os were previously in the same state they were found in, whether this is a leniency or stringency, and if they were found with Taharos we burn them, but if they were found in a different place, we are concerned to be Toleh, but we do not burn.

Question (Beraisa): A loaf was left on a board (attached to a wall). A Tamei (garment) was underneath. If the loaf fell, it would surely fall on the garment (and then to the ground). If the loaf was found on the ground, it is Tahor, we assume that a Tahor person entered and put it on the ground, unless we are sure that no one entered the room.

(R. Elazar): The Chidush is that even though the garment is inclined, and if the loaf fell it would surely roll off it, still, we assume that a Tahor person put it on the ground.

Answer #1: The Beraisa itself says why we are lenient. We assume that a Tahor person put it on the ground!

Question: Similarly, we should assume that a raven dropped the Sheretz in the box after it was moved to the other corner!

Answer: We assume that a Tahor person put it on the ground, for he acts deliberately (so it will not fall and become Tamei). We do not assume that a raven dropped it, for it does not act deliberately.

Question: The loaf is a case of Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid, which is always considered Tamei!

Answer: It is a case of Safek Tum'ah in which Ein Bo Da'as Lisha'el (there was no one present with understanding whom we could ask about the Tum'ah). This is Tahor even in Reshus ha'Yachid.

Answer #2 (to Question (f)): The case is, the garment is Tamei only mid'Rabanan, therefore we are lenient.

Support: It says that a Madaf (this refers to something considered Tamei with respect to something more Kodesh) was underneath.

(Mishnah - Chachamim): The Halachah does not follow either of them...

(Beraisa - Chachamim): The Halachah does not follow Shamai, who does not make any fence, nor does it follow Hillel, who is too stringent;

Rather, she is never retroactively Teme'ah for more than 24 hours. If her last Bedikah was in the last 24 hours, she is (retroactively) Teme'ah from then.

If she checked herself on Sunday and found herself to be Tehorah, and did not check herself again until Wednesday and found herself to be Teme'ah, she is not Teme'ah from Sunday, rather, from 24 hours ago;

If she checked herself in the first hour of the day and was Tehorah, and checked herself again in the fourth hour and was Teme'ah, she is not retroactively Teme'ah for 24 hours, rather, from the first hour.

Objection: This is obvious. She checked herself in the first hour and was Tehorah. We cannot say that she was Teme'ah before this!

Answer: Since we had to teach the previous clause, this clause was included for parallel structure.

Question (Rabah): What is Chachamim's reason?

Answer #1 (Rabah): If the blood came earlier, she would have had a Hargashah.

Objection (Abaye): If so, we should say Dayah Sha'atah!

Answer: Indeed, Rabah's reason is wrong. He was testing Abaye to see if he would object.

Answer #2 (Rav Yehudah): Chachamim enacted that Benos Yisrael should check themselves every morning and evening:

She checks herself in the morning to "ensure" the Taharos she touched the previous night (i.e. that they will not be considered (Safek) Teme'im if she will later become retroactively Teme'ah);

She checks herself in the evening to "ensure" the Taharos that she touched that day.

One who did not check loses (guaranteed Taharah of what she touched during) an Onah (a night or day(time), i.e. from morning to evening).

Question: She loses more than one Onah! (She is retroactively Teme'ah 24 hours)!

Answer: She loses an extra Onah (Even one who checks like enacted loses one Onah, i.e. the Onah before she found herself to be Teme'ah.)

Question (Rav Papa): Sometimes she loses (parts of) three Onos. (E.g. if she did not check herself last evening or this morning, and found herself Teme'ah at noon, 24 hours encompass part of today (morning), last night, and yesterday (afternoon)!

Answer #1 (Rava): Chachamim did not distinguish. They fixed 24 hours (for anyone who did not check in the last 24 hours, no matter what time of day she found herself Teme'ah).

Answer #2: This is in order that sinners should not profit. (If we would say that she never loses (part of) a third Onah, if she omitted a Bedikah and would check herself immediately at the next Bedikah time (and find herself to be Teme'ah) she would lose two full Onos. If she delayed until the middle of the next Onah, she would lose only the part of the Onah that passed and one other full Onah.)

Question: What is the difference between these answers?

Answer: They argue if she was Anusah (unable to check herself. According to Answer #2, she should not lose part of the third Onah. According to Answer #1, she does.)

(Mishnah): If she has a Veses, Dayah Sha'atah.

Suggestion: Our Mishnah is R. Dosa. Chachamim (i.e. who hold like R. Eliezer) disagree;

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Four (categories of) women are Dayan Sha'atan -- "Besulah" (one who never saw blood yet), a pregnant woman, a nursing woman, and an old woman (she ceased having menstrual cycles).

R. Dosa says, a woman with a Veses is Dayah Sha'atah.

Rejection: Chachamim (R. Eliezer) say only that a woman with a Veses is retroactively Teme'ah (when she found herself Teme'ah) not at the time of her Veses. They agree that (if she found herself Teme'ah) at the time of her Veses, Dayah Sha'atah;

The Mishnah discusses when she saw at the time of her Veses.

Inference: R. Dosa says that a woman with a Veses is Dayah Sha'atah even when she found herself Teme'ah not at the time of her Veses.

Question: Who is the Tana of the following Beraisa?

(Beraisa): If a woman with a Veses found a Kesem she is retroactively Teme'ah, because she can become retroactively Teme'ah even when she (properly) finds herself Teme'ah (through actual blood, or a Bedikah). I.e. not at the time of her Veses she is retroactively Teme'ah 24 hours.

Answer #1: This is like Chachamim, it is unlike R. Dosa.

Answer #2: It can even be like R. Dosa;

Perhaps R. Dosa argues with Chachamim only at the time of her Veses, but he agrees that she is retroactively Teme'ah not at the time of her Veses. (This is like Suggestion (b). We retract from Rejection (c) and Inference (c:2).)

The Mishnah discusses the time of her Veses. It is like R. Dosa, and Chachamim disagree. All agree to the (law of the) Beraisa. (The implication of the Beraisa, that a woman with a Veses is Dayah Sha'atah at the time of her Veses, is unlike Chachamim.)

Question: Why don't we say like before (Answer #1), that all agree to the Mishnah, and the Beraisa is only like Chachamim?

Answer: Since we could explain either way, we are stringent to explain like Answer #2. (All agree that she is retroactively Teme'ah not at the time of her Veses. They argue about the time of her Veses.)