1)

(a)Our Mishnah states that ...

1. ... Rok Tapal, Mei G'risin, Mei Raglayim, Neser, Buris, Kemunya and Ashlag (which will be explained shortly) - are able to remove a Kesem.

2. ... if, after Toveling it and working with Taharos (see Tosfos ha'Rosh), one rubs the Kesem with the seven above ingredients and the Kesem remains - it is clearly paint and not a Kesem.

3. ... where, after Toveling it, it either disappears or becomes dimmer - we know that it was a Kesem.

(b)The Tana defines ...

1. ... Rok Tapal - as spit in a mouth of someone who has not eaten any food yet that day (see also Seifer 'Eizehu Mekoman').

2. ... Mei G'risin as - a peeled bean that has been chewed.

3. ... Mei Raglayim as - urine that has turned sour (has become putrid).

(c)One must rub each ingredient - three times.

(d)If one either changed the order of the listed ingredients or rubbed them all simultaneously - the exercise will turn out to be ineffective.

2)

(a)The Beraisa describes Neser (bicarbonate of soda) as Neser Alexandris (and not Neser Antipatris). Initially, we refute Rav Yehudah's suggestion that Boris is synonymous with Ohala (aloe) - seeing as they are both listed independently in a Beraisa.

(b)So we suggest it might be Kavrisa - sulfur.

(c)We refute this suggestion too however, based on a Beraisa which includes Boris and Ohala in a list of things that are subject to Sh'mitah, and based on another Beraisa, Kavrisa cannot possibly be subject to Sh'mitah - since Shevi'is must possess a root, which sulfur does not.

(d)So we revert to the original suggestion, that Boris is Ohala, and the reason that the Tana lists them as two separate items is - because there are two different kinds of Ohala, one kind is similar to Boris, whereas the other is not.

3)

(a)Kemunya is a spice known as Cimolia. The sailors told Shmuel that Ashlag is called Ashlaga - which is found between the two opposite holes of a pearl, and which can be extracted with a metal nail.

(b)We object to the Beraisa, which rules that if one rubbed the Kesem with all these seven ingredients without adding soap and then washed it with soap on its own, all one's Taharos will remain Tamei, on the grounds that - seeing as soap on its own will remove even paint, one will not know whether it was a Kesem or paint.

(c)We therefore amend the Beraisa to read - that if, after rubbing six of the seven Samemanim, one washes the stain with soap and it disappears, her Taharos will remain Tamei, because who knows whether had she initially rubbed the seventh too, it would not have disappeared as well.

(d)A second Beraisa rules that, in a case where the seven Samemanim did not succeed in removing the Kesem the first time, but did, the second time - the woman is Tahor because if it was blood, the first application would have removed it.

4)

(a)Rebbi Zeira qualifies the ruling of the second Beraisa - by confining it to Taharos that are performed before the second washing, whereas Taharos that are performed after it, are Tamei ...

(b)... since washing it a second time, demonstrates that he suspects that it might be blood (to call it Safek Dam) in which case it does not become Bateil even after it is no longer visible (see Chidushei ha'Ran).

(c)Rebbi Aba objects to this however because - if the blood is no longer considered blood, why should the fact he is particular make any difference?

(d)In his reply, Rav Ashi proves from a Beraisa that the Din of Bitul does indeed depend on whether one is particular or not, from Rebbi Chiya there who states that - one rubs the seven Samemanim on Dam Nidah Vaday and renders it Bateil even if the blood did not disappear).

(e)That prove Rebbi Zeira right - because once it has faded, the owner is no longer particular, and it becomes Bateil (a proof that being particular will determine whether the blood becomes Bateil or not (see Tosfos DH 'Alma').

5)

(a)The Mishnah in Keilim rules that an oven into whose space there fell an earthenware vessel which absorbed the liquids of a Zav (which then falls under the category of Tum'ah Belu'ah) - will become Tamei the moment it has been heated ...

(b)... because the liquid stands to emerge (once the earthenware vessel becomes hot).

(c)Resh Lakish however, draws a distinction between Mashkin ...

1. ... Kalin - liquids that are not an Av ha'Tum'ah (such as most of the liquid that emerge from a Tamei Meis or a Tamei Sheretz [and that therefore render Keilim Tamei only mi'de'Rabbanan]), and Mashkin ...

2. ... Chamurin - liquids that are an Av ha'Tum'ah (such as the urine of a Zav or a Zavah [that are Metamei Keilim mi'd'Oraysa]).

(d)He now confines our Mishnah's ruling (which requires the oven to be heated before it will become Tamei) to the former; whereas in the latter case, the oven is Tamei anyway (seeing as the liquids will eventually emerge by being heated).

6)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan however establishes the Mishnah in Keilim regarding an oven into whose space there fell an earthenware vessel ... - both by Mashkin Kalim and by Mashkin Chamurin.

(b)He queries Resh Lakish from our Mishnah 'Hitbilo, ve'Asah al-gabav Taharos ... ve'Lo Avar, harei Zeh Tzeva, Taharosav Tehoros'. He asks that, according to Resh Lakish, since the liquid that is absorbed in the garment is able to emerge by being heated - the Tana ought not to have been so lenient as to assume that it is paint.

(c)Resh Lakish refutes ...

1. ... this proof however - inasmuch as, even though Dam Midah is a Ma'ayan min ha'Torah, Kesamim are purely mi'de'Rabbanan.

2. ... Rebbi Yochanan's next proof, from the Beraisa learned by Rebbi Chiya that we quoted earlier 'Dam ha'Nidah Vaday, Ma'avir alav Shiv'as Samemanim, u'Mevatlo' (which is certainly d'Oraysa, yet the Tana renders it Tahor, even though the blood can emerge by being washed with soap) - by declaring the Beraisa to have been learned in error, for if Rebbi did not teach it in a Mishnah, where should Rebbi Chiya (his Talmid) have known it from?

7)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan queries Resh Lakish once more from a Beraisa discussing a Revi'is Dam from a Meis which has been absorbed by the floor of a house. The Tana declares the Keilim in the house Tamei. We reconcile this with Acherim who declare them Tahor - by establishing the former by Keilim that were in the house before the blood became absorbed, and the latter, by Keilim that wnere brought in only afterwards.

(b)The Tana then rules that if the blood became absorbed inside a garment - it is Tamei if we know that it will emerge through washing, but Tahor, if it will not ...

(c)... on which Rav Kahana comments - 'mi'Kulei Revi'iyos Shanu Ka'an!'

8)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan tries to prove from this Beraisa that - even though it is possible to extract the blood (by washing it with soap, in this case), it is considered Tum'ah Belu'ah, and is not Metamei ...

(b)... a Kashya on Resh Lakish, who is stringent with blood absorbed in a garment as long as it can be extracted.

(c)Resh Lakish answers that Dam Tevusah is different. 'Dam Tevusah' is - a Revi'is of blood of a Meis that emerged partially before the man died and partially after, and we do not know at which stage the majority emerged.

(d)And it is different - insofar as (like Kesamim) its Tum'ah is purely mi'de'Rabbanan.

9)

(a)Resh Lakish now queries Rebbi Yochanan from the Beraisa 'Kol ha'Balu'a she'Eino Yachol la'Tzeis, Tahor' - implying that if the Tum'ah can be extracted, it is Tamei (even before it has actually been extracted).

(b)Rav Papa answers the Kashya by creating three categories of Balu'a. In a case where it ...

1. ... cannot be extracted and the owner is not particular about it remaining there - even Resh Lakish will concede that it is Tahor.

2. ... can be extracted and the owner is also particular - even Rebbi Yochanan will concede that it is Tamei.

(c)Whereas they argue in a case - where the Tum'ah can be extracted but the owner is not particular about it being there.

(d)According to Rav Papa, we will ...

1. ... establish the initial Mishnah in Keilim ('Charasin she'Nishtamesh bahen Zav ... ha'Tanur Tamei she'Sof Tum'ah la'Tzeis') according to both opinions - where the Tum'ah can be extracted, whereas according to ...

2. ... Resh Lakish, the Tana is speaking - even where the owner is not particular (and does not care to remove all that the earthenware vessel absorbed), and according to Rebbi Yochanan, he is speaking - specifically where he is.