1)

(a)Rabah defines 'Charas' (vitriol) in our Mishnah as ink. We support his statement - with a Beraisa.

(b)Our Mishnah does not say 'ki'D'yo', because if it had, we would have thought - that it is referring to after the vitriol has sunk to the bottom of the K'li, when the ink on top is not so black.

(c)From the fact that Rebbi Ami used to peel a layer off dried ink and use it to examine blood - we prove that the 'Shachor' in our Mishnah does not need to be wet.

(d)

1. Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules that blood that is black like black wax, ink (see Tosfos ha'Rosh) or grapes - is Tamei (and is included in the Mishnah's statement 'whatever is more dark than Charas is Tamei').

2. Rebbi Elazar rules that blood that is black like olives, pitch or a raven - is Tahor (and is included in the Mishnah's statement 'whatever is less dark than Charas is Tahor') see Ya'avatz and Seifer 'Eizehu Mekoman'.

2)

(a)Ula permitted using a garment that was made in Siva'ah - to identify 'Dam Shachor' in our Mishnah.

(b)When Ula arrived in Pumbedisa and saw an Arab wearing such a coat - he declared that it tallied with the 'Shachor' in our Mishnah ...

(c)... upon which everybody began tearing out samples (for which they eventually had to pay four hundred Zuz).

3)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan said the same as Ula regarding the garments worn by overseas Ulayrin - meaning either people from a town of that name - or a bath-attendant.

(b)We query this however, from a statement by Rebbi Yanai, who instructed his children not to bury him ...

1. ... in black shrouds - in case, when the time for Techi'as ha'Meisim arrives, he will merit to go to Gan Eden, and will resemble a mourner among the Chasanim.

2. ... in white shrouds - in case he will be sent to Gehinom, and resemble a Chasan among the mourners.

(c)He therefore instructed them to bury him - in red shrouds, so as to avoid creating either of the above impressions.

(d)To reconcile this with Rebbi Yochanan, who maintains that the garments of Ulayrin were black - we establish the latter with regard to the cloths (such as the towels and sheets, that tended to be black), whereas their clothes, it appears, were of a different color.

4)

(a)

1. Shmuel requires all the appearances of blood to be examined - on a background consisting of a white piece of cloth (on which it shows up most).

2. Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi requires black blood to be examined - on a piece of red cloth.

(b)Rav Yirmiyah from Difti tries to reconcile the two opinions - by establishing Shmuel by all appearances other than black.

(c)Rav Ashi disagrees with him, He explains that they are arguing over whether black requires a white background (Shmuel) or a red one (Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi) - because otherwise, Shmuel ought to have specifically precluded black blood from his statement.

5)

(a)Ula claims that, when our Mishnah adds to the Din of Shachor ke'Charas 'Amuk mi'Ka'n, Tamei, Diyhah mi'Ka'n, Tahor, it actually extends to all the appearances, and the Tana said it specifically with regard to Shachor ke'Charas - because of Rebbi Chanina's statement that black blood is really red ... . Consequently, we might have thought that even if it is a little less black than Charas, it will be Tamei) even though we do not say this with regard to the other appearances.

(b)Rami bar Aba disagrees. In the first Lashon, where he is more stringent, he says - that even where the blood of other appearances is a little fainter than the given definition, it is Tamei.

(c)And the Tana's definitions comes to preclude - there where the appearance is a lot fainter than the one that he gives.

(d)In the second Lashon, Rami bar Aba is more lenient than Ula. There, he says - that even if the appearance is stronger than the given one, it is Tahor.

6)

(a)The previous ruling ruling ('Amok meihen, Tahor') will only apply however - as long as it does not resemble the appearance above it (because if it does, it will be Tamei in its own right).

(b)And the point of the Tana's definitions - is only because of 'Shachor ke'Charas', where the difinition precludes a fainter black.

(c)bar Kapara holds like Ula, with the sole exception of - 'Mazug', which is Tahor even if the appearance is stronger than the given one.

(d)Rebbi Chanina was impressed by the fact - that (in cases other than Mazug) bar Kapara followed his ruling to the letter, ruling stringently in cases where the appearances were stronger than the given ones, and leniently, in cases where they were weaker.

7)

(a)Keren Karkom must be - wet before one can use it to identify a bloodstain.

(b)To understand three seemingly contradictory Beraisos, Abaye describes a crocus as having - three rows of petals with three petals in each row.

(c)And the Beraisos refer - to the middle row (location-wise) and to the middle petal (in redness).

(d)When the Tana therefore says ...

1. ... 'Like the bottom one and not like the top one' - he is referring to the middle row and not the one above it.

2. ... 'Like the top one and not like the bottom one' - he is referring to the middle row and not like the one below it.

3. ... 'Like the top one and how much more so like the bottom one' - he is referring to the petal that is the most red, and certainly the one that is just a little less red than it.

4. ... 'Like the bottom one and how much so like the top one' - he is referring to the one that is least red, and how much more so the one that is a little more red than it.

(e)When Rebbi Avahu ruled that one only uses Keren Karkom 'be'Gushaihu' - he meant that they must be attached to the ground in order to use them to examine blood.

8)

(a)Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa describes the earth that one brings from the valley of Beis Kerem to make 'Meimei Adamah' as - 'Adamah Shemeinah' (rich earth).

(b)His colleagues (Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon) disagree with - the location (replacing it with the valley of Yudfas, Sachni, also Ginusar and the likes, respectively (though it is unclear to what extent the Tana'im are arguing, see Me'iri in the Mishnah).

(c)According to a second Beraisa, the water must float (in the K'li) - just a 'K'lifas ha'Shom' (the thickness of a garlic peel) above the water.

(d)And the Tana says 'Ein Shi'ur la'Mayim' - because there is no Shi'ur for the earth either.

9)

(a)When one uses the water to examine a blood-stain, it should be - murky (and not clear).

(b)If the water clears up - one stirs it again.

(c)When the Tana says 'Ein Ochrin be'Yad Ela bi'Cheli', he means either that one should not pour some into one's hand and mix it (but mixing it in the bowl with one's hands is in order) or - that one should mix it by shaking the bowl, and not use one's hands at all.

(d)We resolve the She'eilah by citing the Beraisa 'ke'she'Hu Bodkan, Ein Bodkan Ela be'Kos'. It still remains unclear however - whether one may use one's hand to stir the water in the bowl or not.

(e)The conclusion is - Teiku.

10)

(a)Rabah bar Avuhah further qualified 'Meimei Adamah' by confining it to the location of origin (but not anywhere else) - because its appearance changes when it is moved to a differenct location. Note, that according to this, one would need to take the blood to Bik'as Beis Kerem (or to one of the other locations, according to the respective Tana'im) to examine it, and not vice-versa ]see also Rambam]).

(b)When we cite Rebbi Chanina, who broke up clods of earth and used it for Bedikah, we mean - that he did so without adding water.

(c)Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi's reaction to that was - to curse whoever did likewise ...

(d)... because even if Rebbi Chanina himself - was able to identify the blood of Nidah in this way, most other people were not as smart as he was.

11)

(a)Rebbi Chanina's ...

1. ... wisdom caused Rebbi Yochanan to desist from examining blood-stains - when, whatever he declared Tamei, Rebbi Chanina declared Tahor and vice-versa.

2. ... humility caused Rebbi Elazar to examine blood-stains - because, he argued, if Rebbi Elazar in spite of his great humility, examined bloodstains, then he certainly could.

(b)The nature of Bavel' soil (see Ya'avetz) caused Rebbi Zeira to decline to inspect bloodstains - because, he claimed, if he could not fathom the nature of Bavel, how could he know about bloodstains?

(c)We query Rebbi Zeira's statement from Rava (or Rabah [see Tosfos DH 've'Ha Rava']), who did not know how to examine bloodstains - even though he knew the nature of Bavel.

(d)And we reply - that what he meant was that there was even more reason for him not to examine bloodstains than Rava.

12)

(a)Ula declined to examine a bloodstain, when he arrived in Pumbedisa - because it was Rav Yehudah's territory.

(b)He took his cue from Rebbi Elazar, whom he referred to as 'the master of Eretz Yisrael' - because he once concluded that a bloodstain was Dam Chimud (desire for her husband [see Tosfos ha'Rosh]) by merely smelling it.

(c)Rebbi Ami, who was sitting in front of him at the time, proved him right - by asking the woman directly (after Rebbi Elazar had left the room).

(d)Rebbi Ami then quoted the Pasuk in Tehilim - "Sod Hash-m li'Yere'av" (Hash-m Hands His secrets to those who fear Him) in respect of Rebbi Elazar.

13)

(a)Ifra Hurmiz, the mother of the Shavur Malka (King of Persia) sent a bloodstain to Rava - because she was on the verge of converting.

(b)'Ifra' - is also Persian for 'Chein' (appeal [from the word 'Apiryon']).

(c)Rava discovered that the bloodstain she sent was the result of Chimud - by smelling it (like Rebbi Elazar).

(d)When Ifra Hurmiz remarked how wise the Jews were, the King of Persia retorted - that it was a flash in the pan.

(e)We reconcile this incident with the earlier statement, that Rava did not know how to examine bloodstains - by attributing Rava's prowess here to a miracle (though Tosfos does not agree with this, as we already indicated).

14)

(a)When, to prove that Rava was genuine, Ifra Hurmiz sent sixty different kinds of blood for Rava to examine, he assessed them all correctly, except for the last one (the blood of a louse), which eluded him.

(b)Even though Rava was unable to identify it, she believed that he had - because by a 'fluke', he sent her a present of a comb to kill lice (which she took as an indication that he did indeed know what the last blood was).

(c)She then remarked - that the Jews lived inside the chambers of the heart (meaning that everything is revealed to them).

15)

(a)Rev Yehudah ceased examining bloodstains - when he heard from the mother of Yitzchak his son (alias his wife) that she declined to show the first sighting to a Chacham (because it was disgusting), and he was afraid that the second blood may not tally in appearance with the first, causing him to err in his rulings.

(b)He nevertheless continued to examine the first blood following the days of Tohar (forty days after the birth of a boy, and eighty days after the birth of a girl) - because the first sighting after a Chezkas Taharah is not disgusting, so there is no reason for a woman not to show it to a Chacham.

16)

(a)Rav Yitzchak b'rei de'Rav Yehudah - declared Tahor the bloodstain that Yalsa (Rav Nachman's wife) brought him to examine.

(b)The problem with his ruling is - the fact that Rabah bar bar Chanah had already ruled before him that it was Tamei ...

(c)... and we have learned in a Beraisa that one Chacham is not permitted to declare Tahor or Mutar what his colleague has declared Tamei or Asur.

(d)We answer that initially, he declared it Tamei, and he changed his mind - when Yalsa told him that Rabah bar bar Chanah had on other occasions permitted blood that had resembled the current sighting, only this time his eyes hurt him (which it seems, caused him to err).

(e)And the only reason that he initially declared it Tamei was - out of deference to Rabah bar bar Chanah.

17)

(a)A woman is believed to declare that the blood that she just saw, but which got lost, is equivalent to the blood that so-and-so Chacham permitted on a previous occasion - because that is what we learned in a Beraisa.

(b)In an independent She'eilah, we ask whether a woman is believed to say that so-and-so Chacham permitted blood on a previous occasion, that resembles the blood that she just sighted. We cannot resolve the She'eilah from ...

1. ... the Beraisa that we quoted above - because it speaks where the blood got lost, whereas the She'eilah refers to a case where it is still intact, and her claim is verifiable.

2. ... Rav Yitzchak b'rei de'Rav Yehudah's ruling regarding the case with Yalsa (where he apparently believed Yalsa, as we explained), relying on the very testimony that we are discussing) - because in fact it may well be speaking where Rav Yitzchak relied entirely on his own judgment (and not on Yalsa at all).

18)

(a)When in the day, Rebbi once re-examined blood that he had declared Tamei the night before, he changed his mind and declared it Tahor. Later in the day - he changed his mind again and declared it Tamei once more.

(b)We initially think he did that - because he was unhappy about having changed his mind the first time, in case his first assessment was correct (and it only looked Tahor in the morning because it had dried up, giving the impression of being Tahor).

(c)When he declared that perhaps he had erred - he meant that he ought not to have retracted, since at the of the second Bedikah, it appeared to be Tahor.

(d)And when we exclaim 'Shema Ta'isi?' 'Vaday Ta'isi!', we mean - that he definitely erred, based on a Beraisa, which specifically states that a Chacham should judge the case as he sees it now, and not debate whether if it had been wet, it might have looked different.

19)

(a)We therefore conclude that he retracted ...

1. ... from his first ruling - because when he saw the blood, it had faded and now appeared Tahor (as we explained).

2. ... from his second ruling - because when he looked at it again, it had faded still further, and he realized that, due to the unusual nature of this particular woman's blood, he could only rely on his original ruling.

(b)Rebbi would examine bloodstains by candle-light; Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yossi would examine them, even on a cloudy day - between the pillars of the Beis-Hamedrash where he studied.

(c)According to Rav Ami bar Shmuel, one is normally obligated to examine bloodstains between the sun and the shade. Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah rules - that one examines them in the sun and holds up one's hand to create shade by which to examine them.

20)

(a)Our Mishnah compares 'Mazug' to wine from the Sharon that is diluted, two parts water to one part wine. The Beraisa permits using wine from the Carmel region too - provided it is fresh wine and undiluted.

(b)According to others, there is no difference between the two wines - because they amend the wording 'ha'Sharoni Nidon ke'Karmeli' to 'ke'Sharoni Nidon ke'Karmeli'. According to them therefore, both wines must be fresh and undiluted (see Maharsha).

(c)Either way, says Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi, the wine should be poured into a straight wine-glass made in Teverya - because Teveryan glass was exceptionally fine, making the Bedikah more reliable.

(d)Abaye demonstrated their fineness - in that whereas like all wine-glasses, one Manah of glass was used to manufacture a goblet that held one Log, the same one Maneh of glass was also used for a Teveryan goblet that held two Lugin (instead of the two Manim that were used to manufacture other glasses of two Lugin).