1)

(a)The Beraisa that we cite in support of Rava rules that woman who either sees blood or who finds a Kesem on her clothes, renders Tamei retroactively food and drink - earthenware vessels (even with a sealed lid) and Mishkavos and Moshavos.

(b)Even though it is not possible to touch a sealed earthenware vessel on the inside, a Nidah renders it Tamei - by means of Heset (moving it).

(c)The Tana Kama rules that besides the fact that a 'Kesem' is 'Mekalkeles le'Minyanah' - it also renders Tamei a man who has relations with her (retroactively), whereas 'Ro'eh does not.

2)

(a)Rebbi Akiva is more stringent than the Tana Kama regarding Ro'eh - in that, according to him, 'Ro'eh' does render Tamei a man who has relations with her retroactively (even though she only counts her seven days from the time of the actual sighting).

(b)The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Akiva and the Rabbanan is - whether the decree of Me'es Le'es extends to the husband (Rebbi Akiva) or not (the Rabbanan).

(c)'Mekalkeles le'Minyanah' means - that seeing as she did not know when the Kesem appeared, she could not then know when her seven days of Nidus were over, and her next sighting will therefore be the first sighting of a Zavah.

(d)A woman who sees a Kesem - has to count seven days, then after Tevilah, she is permitted to her husband and is Tahor. The problem only begins with her next sighting. Note, that nowadays, when all women observe the Din of Nidah and Zivus anyway, this problem is not relevant.

3)

(a)The Tana adds that the Taharos that the Nidah dealt with retroactively (either within Me'es Le'es of the sighting or after the previous washing of the stained garment) - are considered Tamei, but cannot be burned.

(b)The problem with Rava's 'Kal-va'Chomer' now is that assuming that ...

1. ... he knew the Beraisa - why did he not cite it?

2. ... he didn't - then from where did he know the 'Kal-Chomer'?

(c)We conclude that Rava really did know the Beraisa, yet he did not quote it - because when the Tana inserts Mishkavos and Moshavos, there is nothing to indicate that both the person and his clothes are Tamei (perhaps it is either one or the other [see Tosfos DH 've'I mi'Masnita') ...

(d)... and the 'Kal-va'Chomer' from K'lei Cheres now teaches us that the Din of Mishkav and Moshav applies in its entirety.

4)

(a)Rav Huna qualifies the Din of Me'es Le'es - by confining it to Kodesh, but not to T'rumah.

(b)And the reason that the Tana does not insert it in the Mishnah in Chagigah, which deals with the Ma'alos de'Rabbanan regarding Kodesh - is because unlike the cases there, there is no Tum'ah at before her sighting on which to base the Tum'ah Lemafre'a, and it is a decree with no real basis.

(c)The problem from the Beraisa that we cited above 'Mah hi Metam'ah, Ochlin u'Mashkin', based on our initial assumption is - that speaking as it does in general terms, it probably refers to T'rumah as well as Kodshim.

(d)To accommodate Rav Huna however - we confine it to Kodshim exclusively.

5)

(a)We query Rav Huna from the Mishnah later, where Rebbi Yehudah obligates Kohanos to examine themselves when they finish eating T'rumah. The problem with this is - that an examination to ascertain the status of T'rumah that has already been eaten appears pointless.

(b)When Rav Chisda answers that it is to rectify the leftovers on her face, he means - that assuming that she is found to be Tahor, then, if when she examines herself the following evening, she turns out to be Tamei Lemafre'a, that Tum'ah will not incorporate the remnants of T'rumah on her face, which were already declared Tahor following the earlier examination.

(c)This explanation poses a Kashya on Rav Huna, according to whom T'rumah is not included in the Din of Lemafre'a. According to him therefore - Rebbi Yehudah's ruling refers to leftover T'rumah on the Kohenes' hands, which she touched after the first examination, and which will therefore should the first examination render her Tamei.

6)

(a)We now query Rav Huna from the next Mishnah, which tells us how Rebbi once erred and ruled like Rebbi Eliezer in a case of a Yoledes who did not sight blood for three periods of thirty days. The ruling of Rebbi Eliezer to which he refers is - that any woman who skips three periods of thirty days adopts the Din of 'Dayah Sha'atah'.

(b)The Rabbanan - confine this ruling to an old woman (as we shall see later).

(c)'After Rebbi realized' his mistake, he consoled himself - with the fact that due to Rebbi Eliezer's greatness, he is worthy to rely upon in time of emergency.

7)

(a)When the Tana says 'after Rebbi realized', he cannot mean after he realized that the Halachah is not like Rebbi Eliezer - because if Rebbi had acted against the Halachah, it would have been improper for him to console himself in this way.

(b)What he therefore must have meant was - after he realized that no ruling had as yet been issued regarding this Machlokes.

(c)Rebbi could not simply rule like Rebbi Eliezer outright - because he was a minority opinion.

(d)The emergency with which he consoled himself was - the fact that it was a year of draught, and he did not want to render Taharos (which were scarce as it was), Tamei (see also Tosfos DH 'be'Sha'as ha'Dechak').

8)

(a)The Kashya on Rav Huna is - how it is possible to learn this Beraisa with regard to Kodshim - since Rebbi lived more than fifty years after the Churban Beis-Hamikdash, and there were no Kodshim in his time.

(b)We reconcile Rav Huna with Rebbi by citing Ula, who referred to the Chaverim in the Galil - who used to prepare wine be'Taharah and sanctify it, to use for the Nesachim, in the hope that the Beis-Hamikdash would soon be rebuilt.

(c)We query Rav Huna once again from a Beraisa, which tells of Rabban Gamliel's maidservant, who was baking loaves of T'rumah, and who, before handling each loaf - would wash her hands and examine herself.

(d)When she came before Rabban Gamliel and informed him that she had sighted blood after the last loaf, he ...

1. ... initially ruled that all the loaves were Tamei - on the basis of the Din of 'Me'es Le'es'.

2. ...retracted - when the maidservant informed him that she had examined herself before each loaf (at which he applied the Din of 'mi'Pekidah li'Pekidah').

9)

(a)To reconcile Rav Huna with the Beraisa, we interpret T'rumah in the Beraisa as - T'rumas Lachmei Todah (the four out of the forty loaves of a Todah which were given to the Kohen).

(b)The problem with saying that the maidservant baked T'rumas Lachmei Todah is - that the Lachmei Todah comprise forty loaves (of which four are T'rumah), and not just four.

(c)And we answer 'de'Afr'shinhu be'Lishayhu' - which means that there were indeed forty doughs, of which Rabban Gamliel's maidservant baked four as T'rumah (see Tosfos DH 'de'Afreshinhu').

(d)The Korban Todah was subsequently Shechted - only after the remaining thirty-six loaves had subsequently been baked.

10)

(a)The answer 'de'Afr'shinhu be'Lishayhu' is based on a statement by Rav Tuvi bar K'tina (or Rav Kisna), who said that if Lachmei Todah are baked as four loaves (instead of forty) - one has fulfilled one's obligation.

(b)The four loaves - comprise the four kinds of bread (ten Esronim of Chametz and three different kinds of Matzah breads, each consisting of three and a third Esronim), each one baked into one loaf instead of ten.

(c)The Torah does indeed require forty loaves - Lechatchilah, but Bedi'eved, four are acceptable.

(d)The problem with from the four loaves is that one cannot just break a piece off each loaf - because the Torah writes in Tzav "Vehikriv mimenu Echad mi'Kol Korban", which teaches us that the T'rumah must consist of complete loaves, and not just pieces.

(e)The problem is solved however - by taking T'rumah from the dough, before the loaves are baked (and then baking each dough as a complete loaf).

11)

(a)We then query Rav Huna from another Beraisa, which relates a similar incident with the maidservant of Rabban Gamliel, only this time, she was sealing barrels of wine (instead of baking loaves of bread). There too, Rabban Gamliel initially declared all the barrels Tamei, but finally, only the last one. We initially assume that one of the two incidents must have pertained to T'rumah - because if they had both pertained to Kodesh, why would the maidservant have needed to ask Rabban Gamliel the same She'eilah again.

(b)And we answer - that the two episodes occurred to two different maidservants, in which case both could have involved Kodesh.

(c)In the second Lashon, Rav Huna states that Me'es Le'es she'be'Nidah is Metam'ah both Kodesh and T'rumah - based on the fact that it is not included in the Ma'alos de'Rabbanan (of Kodesh over T'rumah) in Chagigah.

(d)To reconcile the Beraisa 'le'Kodesh ve'Lo li'T'rumah' (cited by Rav Nachman in apparent support of Rav Huna's first Lashon) with Rav Huna's second Lashon, Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak establishes it - by Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas Kodesh (but not ' ... al Taharas T'rumah'), but as far as real T'rumah is concerned, the Din of 'Me'es Le'es' does apply.

12)

(a)The Mishnah in Chalah discusses a Safek Tum'ah that occurs with a dough - which may be completed be'Tum'ah if it occurred before it was kneaded, but which must be completed be'Taharah, if it occurred afterwards.

(b)The kneading - is the final stage of preparation which obligates the separation of Chalah from the dough.

(c)Consequently - one is ...

1. ... permitted to work on the dough be'Tum'ah before it has been kneaded, while the mixture is still Chulin, since one may cause Chulin in Eretz Yisrael to become Tamei.

2. ... forbidden to work on it be'Tum'ah afterwards - since dough containing Chalah is considered Chalah, and one is forbidden to cause Chalah to become Tamei.

13)

(a)Despite the fact that, in the latter case (after the kneading), the Chalah is forbidden anyway, one is obligated to complete it be'Taharah - because the Pasuk in Korach writes "va'Ani Nasati lachem es Mishmeres Terumosai" (in the plural), to each us that there two kinds of T'rumah that require guarding against Tum'ah, Tehorah and Teluyah (Safek).

(b)The Chalah that one completes be'Taharah has a Din of Teluyah - and is therefore forbidden to eat, but may not be burned.