1)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Kutim Darshened from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Lo Sasig G'vul Re'echa asher Gavlu ha'Rishonim" that - only those who inherit need to be buried, but not Nefalim.

(b)The problem with believing the Kutim that someone was or was not buried in a specific burial site is that- the one La'av that Kutim do not observe is that of "Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol", so how can their evidence be acceptable?

(c)We answer that the Tana is speaking where a Kohen Kuti is standing there. We know that ...

1. ... he is not Tamei - because he is eating Terumah.

2. ... that the Terumah that he is holding is not Tamei either - because otherwise he would not be eating it.

(d)Nevertheless, this ruling is not obvious, because we might otherwise have thought that - they are not conversant with the Dinim connected with the formation of a baby, in which case they may have made the statement thinking that a Nefel that is already forty days old is really less than that, thus declaring him Tahor, when really, he is Tamei.

2)

(a)The Tana also believes a Kuti regarding his testimony whether an animal gave birth before or not, and we ask the same Kashya that we just asked with regard to the burial of Nefalim, to which Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan replies that we know that the Kuti is telling the truth - since he was working with the calf or shearing the lamb at the time (a proof that it cannot have been a B'chor).

(b)Again we ask what the Mishnah is then coming to teach us, and we answer that we might otherwise have thought that they are not experts in Tinuf - meaning that (in the case of a small animal) they may inadvertently have considered the blood that emerged from the mother's womb to be just blood, in which case a baby that is born after it is a B'chor, whereas in reality, the blood was a baby that melted, and the baby that followed is not a B'chor.

(c)The problem with the Tana believing Kutim with regard to Tziyun Kevarim is that - it is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and the Kutim do not generally observe Mitzvos de'Rabbanan (even though they are meticulous in their observance of Mitzvos d'Oraysa).

(d)And we answer that Tziyun Kevarim is different - inasmuch as it is mentioned in the Pasuk in Yechezkel ("ve'Ra'ah Etzem u'Banah Etzlo Tziyun), elevating it to the status of a d'Oraysa in their eyes.

3)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that a Kuti is not believed on S'chachos, Pera'os and Beis ha'P'ras. The Mishnah in Ohalos defines ...

1. ... S'chachos as - branches of a tree that are not close together, and that overhang a path leading to a graveyard, at a point where on occasions, people who do not make it to the graveyard before dusk, bury their dead there.

2. ... Pera'os as - large stones that jut out from the wall, under one of which a Meis is known to be buried, but not which one. In both of the above cases, the Kuti testifies under which branch or stone the Meis is buried (but is not believed).

(b)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav permits blowing one's way through a Beis ha'P'ras - because there is no flesh, only small, broken bones of a Meis strewn around, and bones of a Meis are not Metamei through Ohel, only through Maga and Masa, in which case blowing one's way across will enable a person to pass without becoming Tamei Meis.

(c)And Rav Yehudah bar Ami citing Rav Yehudah - declares a Beis ha'P'ras that has been broken up (by many people walking across it), Tahor.

4)

(a)The Beraisa defines a Beis ha'P'ras, which literally means - broken (or a piece [with reference to the broken bones]).

(b)He gives the Shi'ur as a M'lo Ma'anah (a furrow-full), which is a hundred Amos by a hundred Amos - in which one can plant four Sa'in.

(c)Rebbi Yossi disagrees. He gives the Shi'ur of a Beis ha'P'ras as - five Sa'in.

5)

(a)We query the Mishnah, which rules that a Kuti is not believed with regard to S'chachos and Beis ha'P'ras, from a Beraisa - which believes a Kuti who testifies that there are no graves in a certain field, or that the branches of a certain tree do not overhang a grave ...

(b)... on the grounds that - his testimony concerns the grave in question, which involves an Isur d'Oraysa.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan answers that - the Kuti is only believed there on condition that he himself traverses the entire area, in which case it is clear that the Tum'ah has been cleared from there.

(d)Once again, we ask what the Tana is then coming to teach us, and we answer that - we might otherwise have suspected the Kuti of assuming the body to be in a strip of land, which juts out from the field in question, and which, due to its small size, bears he same name as the field and where he avoided going. And the Tana teaches us that we don't suspect him of that.

6)

(a)Our Mishnah concluded with 'Zeh ha'Kelal, Davar she'Chashudin bo, Ein Ne'emanim alav'. Besides Techumin,'Zeh ha'Kelal comes to include Yayin Nesech (S'tam Yeinam, the prohibition of wine touched by a Nochri), neither of which the Kutim tend to observe.

(b)Regarding Techumin, the Tana is referring to - where the Kuti testified the boundaries of T'chum Shabbos, beyond which, one is forbidden to walk on Shabbos.

(c)The Kutim are not believed in these two areas of Halachah - since both are Isurim de'Rabbanan.

7)

(a)Our Mishnah declares Tamei a Kesem that a woman finds on her body - only if it is next to (or, as we will now see, in line with) her womb.

(b)The Tana declares a woman who finds a Kesem on her ...

1. ... heel - Tamei.

2. ... big toe - Tamei.

3. ... her calf or on the inner or outer part of her foot - Tahor, because it must have come from a location other than the M'kor.

4. ... the front or the back of her calf - Tahor (for the same reason).

(c)The sole distinction that the Tana makes regarding a Kesem that she finds on her undershirt is - whether it is below the belt (Tamei) or above it (Tahor [see Tosfos Yom-Tov]) .

(d)And he declares Tamei a Kesem on the sleeve of her undershirt - provided it can reach the M'kor of the wearer.

(e)The Tana finally rules that an undershirt or a Puli'us (some kind of head-scarf [see commentaries on Mishnah]) that the woman sometimes removes and uses to cover herself - is Tamei, because it tends to move around whilst the owner is sleeping.

8)

(a)Shmuel rules that a woman who examines the ground before sitting down on it, and then discovers a bloodstain there - is Tahor.

(b)He learns it from the Pasuk in Metzora "Dam Yih'yeh Zovah bi'Vesarah" - implying that she is only Tamei if she actually feels the blood move inside her.

(c)We reconcile this with the D'rashah from the same word ...

1. ... which renders a Nidah Tamei even if the blood is still inside her body (as we learned in the third Perek) - by learning that from the word "bi'Vesarah" and the current D'rashah from the extra 'Hey' ("bi'Vesar*ah*").

2. ... "bi'Vesarah", 've'Lo bi'Shefir ve'Lo be'Shilya' (which requires the blood to come from the woman's body, and not from that of her Sh'fir or Shilya) - by admitting, that due the S'vara Hey Minaihu Mafkas (we do not know which of the two D'rashos to omit, so) we learn them both.

9)

(a)We query Shmuel from a Beraisa which discusses a woman who sees blood whilst urinating. Rebbi Meir rules that if she is standing - she is Tamei, whereas if she is sitting, she is Tahor.

(b)We assume that in the Seifa, the blood that she sees comes from a wound - because it is unusual to have a sighting whilst urinating.

(c)And the reason that she is Tamei in the Reisha is - because, due to the pressure of urinating standing that some of the urine flowed back into her body and collected blood from the M'kor.

(d)This poses a Kashya on Shmuel, based on the assumption that she did not feel the blood move - because if she did, why would she be Tahor in the Seifa?

10)

(a)To answer the Kashya, Shmuel will establish the Beraisa where she felt the blood move, and the reason that she is Tahor in the Seifa is - because (based on the fact that it cannot have been a sighting, as we explained) we assume that she mistook the movement of the urine for blood.

(b)In another Beraisa, the Tana draws a distinction between an Eid (cloth) which has on it an elongated Kesem - which is Tamei, and one with a round one - which is Tahor (because a Bedikah generally creates an elongated Kesem and not a round one).

(c)Once again, we try to prove from here - that a woman is Tamei even without feeling the movement of blood, because if the Tana was speaking where she did, then why is she Tahor if the Kesem is round?

(d)Shmuel will therefore establish the Beraisa where she felt the blood move - and the reason that she is Tahor in the case of a round Kesem is that - (based on the fact that a Kesem that is the result of a Bedikah would not be round) she must have confused contact with the Eid with the movement of the blood.

11)

(a)We ask the same Kashya on Shmuel once again from the Mishnah in the second Perek, which declares a woman Tamei and Chayav a Korban, should her husband discover blood on his Eid or she on hers, provided she does so immediately. Even though, as Shmuel is forced to explain, the Tana is speaking where she felt the blood move, she is Tahor should she only discover the blood on her Eid later - because what she saw was obviously not Dam Nidus from before Tashmish, and she must have confused the movement of her husband's Eiver Tashmish for Dam Nidus.

(b)And we query him again from yet another Beraisa, where the Tana rules that in a case of Safek Tamei, Safek Tahor ...

1. ... on her body - she is Tamei.

2. ... on her clothes - she is Tahor.

3. ... Safek Maga'os ve'Hesetos - 'Halach Achar ha'Rov' (with regard to a woman who has no fixed Veses but who has many sightings, and who previously touched or moved Taharos).

(c)We initially explain 'Halach Achar ha'Rov' to mean that - she is Tamei most of her days (whether she feels the blood move or not [a Kashya on Shmuel]).

(d)To reconcile the case with Shmuel, we re-establish it - where most of her days she is Tamei through feeling the movement of blood.

12)

(a)Bearing in mind the distinction the Tana draws between above the belt and below it, the problem with the previous Beraisa is - that Mah Nafshach, if she saw below the belt, then why is the Tana lenient in the case of her undershirt, whereas if she saw above the belt, why is he strict in the case of her body?

(b)And we answer that either way is possible. If we establish the Beraisa ...

1. ... below the belt - then the reason that the Tana rules 'Safek ... al Chalukah, Tahor' is - because it also speaks where she walked through the butcher's market, where her clothes probably became stained as she brushed past a meat-stall, and besides, had the Kesem come from her body, it ought to have been on her body, and not on her shirt.

2. ... above the belt with the ruling 'Safek ... al Besarah, Tamei' - it speaks in a case where she did some sort of backward somersault (in which case we will not even rely on the butcher's market [See Tosfos DH 'Al Besarah']).

(c)According to ...

1. ... the first explanation, the Tana concludes 'al Besarah, Tamei' - because if it had come from any external source, it would have been found on her clothes.

2. ... the second explanation, the Tana concludes 'al Chalukah Tehorah' - because had it come from her body when she made the backward movement, it would have been found on her body (and not on her clothes).

13)

(a)We finally prove from the current Beraisa "al Besarah Safek Tahor, Safek Tamei" that - she is Tamei even without feeling anything (a Kashya on Shmuel).

(b)And we bring a second proof from our Mishnah - from the opening ruling 'ha'Ro'eh Kesem ... Temei'ah' (even though she felt nothing).

(c)Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti answers that this speaks mi'de'Rabbanan (and that Shmuel too agrees with that). And the reason that the Rabbanan issue such a decree is - because otherwise a woman might feel the movement of blood subconsciously, without realizing it, and think that she is still Tahor.

(d)According to Rav Ashi, Shmuel ('Badkah Karka ... Tehorah') is even speaking mi'de'Rabbanan too, and his reason is not because she did not feel blood - but because the Rabbanan only decreed Kesamim on things that are subject to Tum'ah, whereas the ground is not.

14)

(a)The problem we now have with Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti's answer is - why Shmuel then chose to present the case of Karka and not a garment?

(b)And we answer that Shmuel referred specifically to Karka - to teach us that even in a case of Karka, which is easier to inspect than a garment, the Kesem is Tahor and we do not render the woman Tamei on the assumption that the blood definitely came from her body.