Explanation: Not at the time of her Veses, she is Temei'ah retroactively. However, it is not totally like Rabanan, for they say so even at the time of her Veses.

Question: Initially what did he think, that we say oppositely, and we do not say stringently?

Answer: Initially, he wanted to establish the Mishnah like everyone. However, when he brought the Beraisa, he cannot establish [both the Mishnah and Beraisa] like everyone, he retracted and explained stringently.

Inference: It is proper to be stringent about one who has a Veses more than the four women;

If so, R. Dosa, who said that when she has a Veses, Dayah Shaitah, all the more so he holds so about the four women.

Question: If so, below (7b) that [Shmuel] rules like R. Eliezer in four Halachos, why does he include this among them, since R. Dosa holds like him? He should not have counted it, like we say below!

Answer (and retraction from Inference): When she has a Veses, her Kesem is Tamei retroactively - this is not because she is more stringent than the four women. Rather, they decreed about at the time of her Veses due to not at the time of her Veses, even though regarding a sighting [of blood], we do not decree.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He is more stringent about Kesamim than about a sighting.

Objection #1: If so, why does the Gemara elaborate to say that he is stringent about Kesamim? It should have said "it is R. Meir", and no more!

Objection #2: Below, a Beraisa teaches that one who sees a Kesem is confused about her count. One who sees blood is not confused about her count;

Inference: Also other Tana'im are more stringent about Kesamim than about a sighting.

Implied question: This Beraisa is like R. Meir, for it teaches that she is Metamei retroactively Bo'alah (the man who had Bi'ah with her), and below (15a) we say that only R. Meir holds that that she is Metamei retroactively Bo'alah!

Answer: The Beraisa's law that she is confused about her count is like everyone.

Support: Below (53b), a Beraisa teaches that one who sees a Kesem is Metamei herself retroactively for Kodshim. This means that she is confused about her count, like I will explain there with Hash-m's help.

Explanation #2: R. Meir is stringent about Kesamim. He is often stringent about Kesamim more than Rabanan, like the Mishnah below (52b) "one who sees a Kesem is concerned for Zov. R. Meir says so. Chachamim say, Zov does not apply to Kesamim";

We say there "who are Chachamim? They are R. Chanina ben Antigenus", who is more lenient about Kesamim, like we say here.

Support: In several places R. Meir is stringent, like we say below (59b) regarding a woman who urinates, and below (14a) we say that if she checked with a cloth that was not checked, and left it in a box, and tomorrow she found blood on it, R. Meir is Metamei and Chachamim are Metaher;

Therefore, we say here that R. Meir is stringent about Kesamim.

Implied question: Below (60a), a Beraisa says that if she lent her garment to a Nochris, she may not attribute [a Kesem on it] to the Nochris. R. Meir says, she may attribute to the Nochris. This shows that he is more lenient than Rabanan!

Answer: In any case, in most places he is more stringent.

Explanation: The latter clause is a bigger Chidush than the former.

Explanation: [She must do Bedikos before and after Bi'ah] even though they said that Dayah Shaitah.

Explanation: Now, [retroactive Tum'ah of] me'Es la'Es, for one who was negligent and did not check in the morning and checked at night and found that she is Temei'ah, checking in the afternoon, after Bi'ah, diminishes [the retroactive Tum'ah], and she is not Metamei me'Es la'Es;

All the more so when she checked in the morning, and she was not negligent at all, it diminishes, and she is not Metamei from [before the Bedikah in] the morning!

Question: We do not learn from our Mishnah to be Metamei people and clothes!

Note: The Ramban says that our Mishnah discusses a bed to teach that she is Metamei retroactively a Mishkav. Maharam says that perhaps it teaches that the bed is Metamei people, but the people are not Metamei Begadim. Alternatively, the Chidush of a bed is that we do not consider this Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol.

Explanation: We do not ask from Taharos, for since she engages with them, this is called Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol, like Rashi explained.

Inference: Obviously, since her friends carry her in the bed, the bed is called Davar she'Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol.

Question (Riva): In Pesachim (19a) it says that if a needle was found in meat, the knife (that touched it) and the hands are Tehorim;

[Rav Ashi] establishes it to discuss a needle that was Tamei Mes, and [the knife and hands] are Tehorim because the Azarah is Reshus ha'Rabim, but if it were Reshus ha'Yachid, they would be Tamei;

We ask why this is, for Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol, [and answer that Rav Ashi] teaches like R. Yochanan, who says that Safek Tum'ah that comes through man, it is considered like Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol.

Summation of question: What was the question there, and why did we need to bring R. Yochanan's teaching? Since a person holds the knife, it is considered Davar she'Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol, even without R. Yochanan's teaching, like it connotes here!

Answer #1: Here it is considered more Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol when her friends carry her in a bed, because also the Nidah who is Metamei [the bed] Yesh Bah Da'as Lish'ol.

Answer #2: [Here it is considered more Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol] because also her friends who carry her become Tamei through carrying a Nidah;

However, there the person is not Tamei, rather, the knife that touched the needle.

Support: Now it is fine that below, we challenge R. Yochanan from one who wrapped himself in his Talis, and we do not challenge also Ze'iri, because the person who holds the Talis is unlike her friends, for also they [become] Temei'os, and Yesh Bahen Da'as Lish'ol.

Question: What is R. Yochanan's Chidush? Our Mishnah (Taharos 3:8) teaches this! If a toddler is next to a dough... Chachamim are Metamei, because they made the toddler as if Yesh Bo Da'as Lish'ol, even though the dough is Ein Bo Da'as Lish'ol!

In Taharos (4:9), a Mishnah says that if a Tamei stretched his foot among liquids, and it is a Safek whether or not he touched, it is Tamei in Reshus ha'Yachid.

Also the Seifa there teaches that if there was a stick in his hand, and the end was full of Tamei liquids, and he threw it among loaves, if it is a Safek whether or not it touched, it is Tahor;

The reason is because Tum'ah of liquid to be Metamei others (foods) is not mid'Oraisa, so the Safek to be Metamei others is mid'Rabanan, like it explains there. If not for this, the Safek would be Tamei!

Answer: We can say that the dough, liquids and loaves are in people's hands. R. Yochanan's Chidush is that [the same applies to] even if they are resting on the ground, or the Taharos are in a Tahor's hands, and the Tum'ah rests on the ground.

Explanation: His Talis is Tamei, and Taharos are next to him, or his Talis is Tahor, and Tum'os are next to him, e.g. a Sheretz, and he does not know whether or not it touched it;

Alternatively, Tum'ah and Taharos are in front of him, and his Talis is Tahor, and he does not know whether it touched Tum'ah and afterwards Taharos;

The Chidush is that this is not a Sefek Sefeka, i.e. perhaps it did not touch the Sheretz, and even if it touched, perhaps it did not touch the Taharos, for if it touched the Sheretz, similarly it touched the Taharos.

Question: This is obvious, since it is impossible that it did not touch!

Answer: It is not totally impossible, rather, it is close to Vadai [that it touched].

Support #1: The Tosefta (Taharos 4:1) says "if it is impossible without touching, the Safek is Tamei." Since it says "Safek", this implies that it did not Vadai touch.

Support #2: R. Shimon ben Gamliel said "we tell him to repeat";

We cannot say that he refers to the Reisha, in which [the first Tana] said that the Safek is Tahor, and [R. Shimon ben Gamliel] says that we tell him to repeat, and if it touches, it is Tamei, for if so, Rabanan would not argue to say "we do not repeat regarding Taharos!"

Source: Below (58a) we say that only to be lenient, we do not repeat, but to be stringent, we repeat.

Support #3: In Chulin (2b), we say "if he says 'I am sure that I did not touch'..." Also this is not precise, for the Azarah is Reshus ha'Rabim, like we say in Pesachim (19b. Rashash - it suffices if he is close to Vadai. However, it cannot be an even Safek.)

Question #1: We should say Dayo (we cannot learn from a Kal v'Chomer more than the law of either source. We can learn only that a Nidah is Metamei a Mishkav) to be like Mishkevos of Ohel ha'Mes, which are not Metamei a person and his clothes, or Dayo to be like Klei Cheres of me'Es la'Es!

Question #2: We should say that small flasks Yochichu (refute the Kal v'Chomer)! They become Tamei through Mes, but they are Tahor regarding me'Es la'Es of Nidah, for Tum'as Maga does not apply to them. (A Kli Cheres receives Tum'ah only from its interior. The openings of the flasks are too narrow to insert one's finger.) The same applies to Mishkevos!

Answer #1 (Rashi): The Kal v'Chomer is from a Kli Cheres, which is Tahor in Ohel ha'Mes. It is Tamei regarding me'Es la'Es of Nidah, just like a Nidah herself;

Mishkevos and Moshevos, which are Temei'im in Ohel ha'Mes, all the more so they are Temei'im regarding me'Es la'Es of Nidah, like a Nidah herself!

Question: It is still difficult. [How can we learn from] a Kli Cheres, which cannot become Tahor through a Mikveh, or it becomes Tamei from its airspace (interior, even if the Tum'ah did not touch it), like we ask in Sotah (29b)!

Answer: Other Kelim are Yochi'ach (prove that it does not depend on this). They are not Mekabel Tum'ah from their airspace, they can become Tahor through a Mikveh, and they are Temei'im regarding me'Es la'Es of Nidah, like through a Nidah herself. They become Rishonim [l'Tum'ah].

It is obvious to him that even Mishkevos are Temei'im regarding me'Es la'Es of Nidah, like it says in the Beraisa, and he makes a Kal v'Chomer to be Metamei a person and his clothes.

Observation: He cannot make the Kal v'Chomer as follows. A Kli Cheres is not Metamei from its back, in all Tum'os, but its inside is Tamei through me'Es la'Es of Nidah. All the more so Mishkevos (are Tamei through me'Es la'Es of Nidah)!

Source: We say like this in Chulin (71b). "Do we say from its outside? We say from its inside!" There, the simple meaning is explained.

Note: There, the Gemara learned from a Kli Cheres Mukaf Tzamid Pasil that it is easier to stop Tum'ah outside from breaking in, than to stop Tum'ah inside from breaking out, and applied this to what is swallowed in a person. It questioned this, for a Kli Cheres is not Mekabel Tum'ah from its exterior, but a person is. We answered that we do not learn from the outside of the Kli Cheres, rather, from its inside! I.e. the laws of its interior and exterior do not depend on each other. This explains why we cannot make the Kal v'Chomer that Tosfos suggested.

Comment - Question: This that it is not saved from me'Es la'Es, is regarding Heset (Tum'ah through moving), for it is considered as if he touched inside, for we learn (Heset) from an inclusion of [Tum'as] Maga (touching - 43a);

Also through Maga of Mes (if Tum'as Mes were inside it) it is Tamei!

Source: We must say so in Shabbos (84b). It says [there] that small flasks, which are Tahor through a Zav, are Tamei in Ohel ha'Mes. A mat, which is Tamei through [Mishkav of] a Zav, surely it is Tamei in Ohel ha'Mes! (The mat is a Kli Etz without an interior, or it is of reeds. If it were not proper for Mishkav, it would not be Mekabel Tum'ah at all.)

We should say that a Kli Cheres Mukaf Tzamid Pasil is Yochi'ach! (It is Tamei through a Zav, and Tahor in Ohel ha'Mes.) Rather, it is like I explained. (We cannot refute the Kal v'Chomer, for also Mukaf Tzamid Pasil is Tamei through Maga of Mes.)

Answer: There, the Kal v'Chomer is from Midras. Now, we cannot say that Mukaf Tzamid Pasil is Yochi'ach, for it is Tahor from Midras. (Aruch l'Ner - Tosfos retracts from saying that Heset is like Maga, so this answers his question.)