1)

(a)We just cited the Beraisa that draws a distinction between a woman who has a sighting at the time of her Veses (Dayah Sha'atah), and one who has a Kesem (who is Tamei retroactively). And we extrapolate from the fact that the Beraisa presents its ruling with regard to a woman who has a Veses - that the Kesem of one of the four women by whom we also rule 'Dayan Sha'atan' has the same Din as the actual sighting ...

(b)... because there is no parallel case regarding the sighting which is Tamei retroactively.

(c)We establish this ruling like Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos, cited by Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, according to whom the principle 'Kismah ki'Re'iyasah' will not apply - to a child (under bas Mitzvah), who is not subject to Tum'ah at all (even if her sheets are dripping with blood).

(d)Consequently, when he concludes 'Ein Chosh'shin lah' - he means that even after seeing blood, she remains Tahor.

2)

(a)We query this however, from a Beraisa, which discusses the women about whom the Chachamim say 'Dayan Sha'atan', and where the Tana Kama says 'Kisman Tamei'. When Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos says ' ... Ein lahem Kesem', we initially interpret this to mean - that their Kesamim do not render them Tamei at all.

(b)To reconcile the latter with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel however, we finally interpret it as - 'Ein lahen Kesem Lemafre'a, (retroactively), Aval Yesh lahen Kesem mi'Ka'an u'le'Haba' (from now on]).

3)

(a)According to what we just learned, when the Tana Kama says 'Kisman Tamei' - he means that they are even Tamei Lemafre'a.

(b)Based on another Beraisa, the name of the Tana who is so strict with regard to Kesamim is - Rebbi Meir.

(c)So much so, that, according to him, the Din of Kesem is more stringent than that of actual sighting. The reason for this is - because whereas when the woman sees blood, we assume that she saw it the moment it appeared (since it is not common for her to see blood); whereas when she sees a Kesem, there is no reason to assume that, had she examined the garment earlier, she would not have found the stain already then.

(d)In the same Beraisa, Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos - confines his lenient ruling to a 'Tinokes' who is not yet due to see blood (which we will define more explicitly later); whereas one who has come of age will indeed be Tamei mi'Ka'an u'le'Haba, even according to him.

4)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 've'ha'Meshameshes be'Eidim Harei Zu ki'Pekidah'. Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel states - that the Eid before Tashmish does not detract from the previous examination ...

(b)... because, as Rav Ketinah explains - the woman is in a hurry to be with her husband, and cannot therefore be trusted to examine herself properly.

(c)Initially, we interpret the Tana's use of the plural in 'Meshameshes be'Eidim' - to refer to after Tashmish, one for the woman and one for the man.

(d)And we base this on a Mishnah in the next Perek, which specifically states that it is the way of B'nos Yisrael - to be Meshamesh using two cloths, one for herself and one for her husband.

5)

(a)We query the current answer inasmuch as, if both Eidim refer to after Tashmish, it will be obvious that they detract from the previous Pekidah; whereas if one of them referred to before Tashmish, the Chidush would be - that we trust the woman to examine herself properly, in spite of her eagerness to be with her husband, and that it therefore detracts from the previous examination.

(b)And we answer that even regarding the Eidim after Tashmish, the Tana is teaching us - that we are not afraid that the Zera covered over the blood (because if we were, we would not be able to rely on it).

(c)The grmmatical problem with the alternative explanation (that the Tana is only coming to teach us a woman's obligation to examine herself before Tashmish) is - that the Tana writes 'ha'Meshameshes be'Eidim', which implies that he is coming to issue a ruling in connection with the using of Eidim (and not the actual obligation to do so).

(d)And we solve the problem - by amending the Mishnah to read 'u'Meshameshes be'Eidim' (which implies that she is obligated to do so).

6)

(a)The problem with the Chachamim's ruling that Eidim also detract from the previous Pekidah is - that if Eidim detract from Me'es Le'es (from the previous day), is it not obvious that they will also detract from the Pekidah that took place only later (see also Tosfos DH 'Hashta')?

(b)And we answer - that Chazal might have been more lenient with regard to Me'es Le'es than mi'Pekidah li'Pekidah, in order to avoid the loss of the Taharos that she dealt with from the previous day.

7)

(a)The problem with our Mishnah, which, describing the case of 'Dayah Sha'atah', speaks about a woman who, after sitting in her bed dealing with Taharos, separates and sees blood is - why the Tana finds it necessary to insert the fact that the woman was sitting in her bed.

(b)We answer that the Tana is coming to teach us that the bed is included in the Chumra of Me'es Le'es, and cite Ze'iri, who rules - that Me'es Le'es she'be'Nidah is Metamei Mishkav and Moshav to render a person Tamei, who in turn, is Metamei the clothes he is wearing.

(c)The problem that we still have from the ruling 'Tamei Me'es Le'es' is that the bed ought to be Tahor even in the R'shus ha'Yachid - because it is a Davar she'Ein bo Da'as Lisha'el, which (as we have already learned) is Tahor.

(d)This problem does not extend to the Taharos that the woman was dealing with - because it is obvious that, since she was handling them, they fall under the category of 'Yesh bo Da'as Lisha'el'.

8)

(a)Ze'iri solves the problem - by establishing the case where the woman's bed was being carried by her friends, as she worked with the Taharos (in which case, it became a 'Davar she'Yesh bo Da'as Lisha'el' (just like the Taharos).

(b)Rebbi Yochanan rules - that a Safek that comes through a person is Tamei (in the R'shus ha'Yachid) even if the article is lying on the ground (and not actually being held by the Tamei person), as if it was itself a Davar she'Yesh bo Da'as Lisha'el.

(c)We query Rebbi Yochanan however, from a Beraisa which discusses a Tamei person putting on his cloak, and there are Taharos above his head and lying on the ground next to him, which he may have touched in the process. The Tana rules there - that the Taharos remain Tahor, unless we know for sure that he could not possibly have avoided touching them whilst putting on his cloak.

(d)When Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ruled that we make him put on his cloak again and watch whether he touches the Taharos or not - the Rabbanan retorted that we do not employ this method with regard to Taharos (because it is possible that once he will touch the Taharos and once he won't).

9)

(a)We ascribe the Rabbanan's lenient ruling - to the fact that the Taharos lying on the floor next to the Tamei man falls under the category of 'Ein bo Da'as Lisha'el', even though the Safek Tum'ah comes through a person (a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan).

(b)And we answer by citing Rav Hoshaya - who establish the Beraisa - by a Reshus ha'Rabim (which is why the Tana rules Tahor), but in a Reshus ha'Yachid, the Taharos would indeed be Tamei (like Rebbi Yochanan).

10)

(a)We now query Ze'iri from a Beraisa which Avimi brought with him from the bei Chuza'i. Initially, we interpret the Beraisa, which says 'Me'es Le'es she'be'Nidah, Mishkavah u'Moshavah ke'Maga'ah' to mean that just as the vessel touched by the Nidah does not render a person Tamei (only food and drink), neither does the Mishkav and Moshav on which the Nidah sat or lay (during Me'es Le'es [a Kashya on Ze'iri]).

(b)Rava refutes this explanation however, from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from earthenware vessels with lids tightly shut (which saves them from Tum'ah in an Ohel ha'Meis) - yet they are not saved from Me'es Le'es she'be'Nidah, 'Kal-va'Chomer' her Mishkavos and Moshavos, which are not saved from Tum'ah in an Ohel ha'Meis.

(c)Rava knows that earthenware vessels are not saved in the case of Me'es Le'es she'be'Nidah - from a Beraisa, which we will cite shortly.

(d)To answer the Kashya on Ze'iri, we reinterpret the word 'ke'Maga'ah' in the Beraisa to mean - that whoever touches her Mishkav and Moshav is Tamei as if he had touched her (in which case he and the clothes he is wearing will be Tamei).