Version #1 - Tosfos - Question (against Rav Huna - Beraisa): If there were drops of blood above and below (the belt), we can be Toleh lower blood on upper blood up to a Gris. (Surely, the upper blood is not from her. Wherever it came from, we say that the lower blood is also from there.)

Suggestion: If a lower Kesem is up to a Gris, we can be Toleh on an upper one. (If it is less than a Gris, in any case we are Toleh on a louse. The Chidush must be about exactly a Gris. We are not Toleh on a louse, but we are Toleh on the upper Kesem!)

Rejection: No, it means that if the upper Kesem is (too big to be Toleh on a louse, e.g. three Grisim or two or any amount) up to (but not including) a Gris, we can be Toleh the lower one on it.

Version #2 - Rashi - Question (against Rav Huna - Beraisa): If there were drops of blood more than and less than a Gris, we can be Toleh up to a Gris.

Suggestion: This means, we can be Toleh up to and including a Gris!

Rejection: No, we can be Toleh up to but not including a Gris. (end of Version #2)

(R. Chanina): If more than a Gris was found on her, and a louse is mashed into the Kesem, she is Teme'ah;

We are not Toleh more than a Gris on lice (even if we see a louse in the Kesem).

(R. Yanai): She is Tehorah;

We are not Toleh more than a Gris on lice when there is no known louse in the Kesem. Here, we are Toleh the excess over a Gris (Tosfos ha'Rosh - up to a Gris) on the known louse. We may be Toleh the remaining Gris on an unknown louse, as usual. (In the Mishnah, we are not Toleh more than a Gris even when she killed a louse, for we do not know whether or not its blood is in the Kesem found. - PF.)

Question (R. Yirmeyah): If a woman engaged in blood (that could make a Kesem) the size of a Gris, and she found a Kesem more than a Gris, what is the law?

He asks according to R. Chanina and R. Yanai.

R. Chanina is Metamei only when she did not engage in blood (he is never Toleh more than a Gris on lice). However, when she engaged in blood, he could be Toleh up to a Gris on the blood, and the remaining Gris on an unknown louse!

R. Yanai is Metaher only when she found a known louse in the Kesem. When she did not, perhaps he is not Toleh more than a Gris (on things that are not known)!

Answer (Beraisa): If a woman engaged in red things, she may not be Toleh a black Kesem on them. (This is not so obvious. Black blood was originally red. One might have thought that we are Toleh that the blood changed color);

If she dealt with a small amount, she may not be Toleh a large Kesem on it.

Question: What is the case?

Answer #1: The case is like our question. (She engaged in the size of a Gris, and found a Kesem more than a Gris, and it says that she may not be Toleh!)

Rejection (and Answer #2 to Question h:2): No, she engaged in a Gris, and found a Kesem more than two Grisim.

Objection: If so, obviously we cannot be Toleh!

Answer: One might have thought that we are Toleh that the blood she dealt with is in the middle, so less than a Gris remains on each side, and we are Toleh each remainder on a louse. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so. (Rosh - this is a flimsy rejection. There is no reason to be Toleh that the blood she dealt with is in the middle. The Halachah follows Answer #1.)

Version #1 (Rava): If one substance resembling blood (but it is not blood) was found on her, she may be Toleh different appearances (which could be blood) on it. (Just like the first substance came from elsewhere and she did not notice, the same applies to the others.)

Question (Beraisa): If a woman engaged in red things, she may not be Toleh a black Kesem on them.

Answer: The law is different when she engaged in red things. (We have no source to say that anything else came on her without her noticing.)

Version #2 (Rava): If a woman engaged in one thing, she may be Toleh other things on it.

Question (Beraisa): If a woman engaged in red things, she may not be Toleh a black Kesem on them.

Answer: Rava discusses a chicken. It has various appearances of blood.

(Mishnah): A case occurred... (R. Akiva says, Chachamim enacted Kesamim, but to be lenient... )

Contradiction (Beraisa): Chachamim enacted Kesamim, to be stringent.

Resolution (Ravina): The Beraisa means, Chachamim enacted Kesamim to be more stringent than the Torah. The entire law of Kesamim is mid'Rabanan.

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer bar Tzadok): If an Ed was under a pillow... (if blood is in a round shape, she is Tehorah. If it is a streak, she is Teme'ah).

Question: Do Chachamim argue with R. Eliezer?

Answer #1 (Beraisa): (The extent of) a long Kesem joins (for the Shi'ur of over a Gris), but spots of blood do not join.

Question: Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?

It cannot be R. Eliezer. He does not require a Shi'ur for a streak!

Answer #1: (We must say that Chachamim argue with R. Eliezer.) The Tana is Chachamim.

Rejection (and Answer #2 to Question f:1): No, the Tana is R. Eliezer. He does not require a Shi'ur for a streak on an Ed, but he requires a Shi'ur for Kesamim. (Blood on an Ed creates a Safek mid'Oraisa. Perhaps it came with Hargashah, but she attributed the Hargashah to the Bedikah! Also, it is reasonable to be stringent about an Ed because the blood almost certainly came from the Makor, for lice rarely enter that area.)

Answer #2: Rav Yehudah taught that the Halachah follows R. Eliezer.

This implies that there is an argument.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If a woman urinated and saw blood:

If she was standing, she is Teme'ah; if she was sitting, she is Tehorah.

R. Yosi says, in either case she is Tehorah.

R. Yosi says, if a man and woman urinated into the same Kli and there is blood in the urine, she is Tehorah;

R. Shimon is Metamei, because it is rare for blood to come from a man. The Chazakah is that it came from her.

(Gemara) Question: What difference does it make if she was standing or sitting?

Surely, the stringency of standing is that the urine goes to the Makor (before coming out), the Dam came from there. Also when she sits, (if she does not allow the urine to spurt) it goes to the Makor!

Answer (Shmuel): The case is, she allowed the urine to spurt.

Question: We should be concerned lest after the urine spurted, (Tosfos - it dripped, some went to the Makor and) blood came from the Makor!

Answer (R. Aba): The case is, she sat on the edge of the Kli. Had the blood came after the spurting stopped, it would have been found on the Kli.

(Shmuel and R. Aba): The Halachah follows R. Yosi.

(Mishnah - R. Yosi): If a man or woman urinated...

Question: What would R. Meir say if a man and woman stood and urinated into the same Kli?

Perhaps R. Meir is Metamei only regarding a single Safek (whether or not it came from the Makor), but not when there is another Safek (perhaps the blood is from him);

Or, perhaps he is Metamei in either case!

Answer #1 (Reish Lakish): He is Metamei in either case.

Question: What is Reish Lakish's source for this?

Answer: Since the Mishnah does not say that R. Meir and R. Yosi are Metaher, this implies that R. Meir is Metamei.

Question: If R. Meir is Metamei even in a Sfek Sfeika, the Tana should have taught this, and he would not need to teach (the Reisha,) that he is Metamei a single Safek!

Answer: The argument was taught in the Reisha to teach the Ko'ach (extremity) of R. Yosi. He is Metaher a single Safek.

Question: Why does he teach the Ko'ach of R. Yosi, and not the (argument in the Seifa, i.e. the) Ko'ach of R. Meir?

Answer: It is preferable to teach the Ko'ach of the lenient opinion.

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): R. Meir is Metamei a single Safek, but he agrees that a Sfek Sfeika is Tahor.

Question: If so, both R. Meir and R. Yosi should be Metaher in the Seifa!

Answer: Indeed, they do. Since the Reisha ended with R. Yosi's opinion, the law of the Seifa was said in his name (even though R. Meir agrees with it).

Question: Since R. Yosi is Metaher a single Safek, there was no need to teach that he is Metaher a Sfek Sfeika!

Answer: One might have thought that he is Metaher a single Safek b'Di'eved (if she already touched Taharos), but l'Chatchilah she should not touch. The extra clause teaches that he is Metaher even l'Chatchilah.

Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa - R. Meir and R. Yosi): If a man and woman urinated into the same Kli and there is blood in the urine, she is Tehorah;

R. Shimon is Metamei.

Question: What would R. Shimon say if a woman sat and urinated (by herself)?

Perhaps he is Metamei only if she was standing, for there is no room (for the urine to flow straight out. It goes to the Makor first.) However, if she was sitting, she is Tehorah;

Or, perhaps he does not distinguish!

Answer (Beraisa - R. Meir): If a woman sat and urinated (and saw blood), she may be Toleh (that it came from the source of urine), but not if she was standing;

R. Yosi says, in either case she may be Toleh;

R. Shimon says, in either case she may not be Toleh.

Question: What would R. Shimon say if a woman sat and urinated into the same Kli as a man?

Perhaps (in the Mishnah) he is Metamei only if she was standing (even if a man also urinated into the Kli, for then her urine surely went to the Makor first) or if she was sitting (and all the urine is from her), for each is like a single Safek. However, if she sat and urinated into the same Kli as a man, this is a Sfek Sefeika, so he is Metaher!

Or, perhaps he does not distinguish!

Answer (Mishnah - R. Shimon): She is Teme'ah, for the Chazakah is that it came from her.

He does not distinguish between standing and sitting.

(Mishnah): If a (Tahor) woman lent a (checked) garment to a Nidah or a Nochris, received it back, wore it, and found a Kesem (Rashi; Rashba - the Tehorah wore it before lending it), she is Toleh that the Kesem came from the borrower.

If three women wore the same garment or sat on the same bench, and blood was found, all are Teme'os;

R. Nechemyah says, if they sat on a stone bench or the platform of the bathhouse, they are Tehoros;

He holds that Kesamim apply only to things that are Mekabel Tum'ah.