Explanation: It is lacking a Vov.

Question: Our tradition is that it is written full (with a Vov)!

Answer: We find that our tradition argues with the Gemara, in Shabbos (55b) regarding Bnei Eli, it says it is written Ma'aviram, and in our Nevi'im it is written Ma'avirim, full (with a Yud).

Explanation: Because in Bava Basra (9b), regarding one who carries a Neveilah, even though he is Metamei other garments on him, he is not Metamei people or Klei Cheres, therefore it mentions [people and Klei Cheres] here.

Reference: This is explained in Bava Kama (85a. There (DH Klal), Tosfos explained that Tana'im argue about whether or not we expound them only when they refer to one matter, but if they discuss different matters, all agree that we do not expound them.)

Assertion: R. Yochanan, who said above (19b) that R. Meir holds like Akavya ben Mehalalel, and is Metamei Yarok (yellow) blood, explains that "yellow" blood here is not truly yellow, like above. Rather, it is lighter;

Similarly, Akavya holds that a Kusis is Metamei yellow blood, that is lighter than the yellow blood that he is Metamei. Above, I explained differently (19b DH Yarad. R. Meir is Metamei mid'Rabanan. Alternatively, yellow is not precise. Rather, a color that is Tahor, they consider it Tamei. Alternatively, R. Meir's primary reason is that the day she finishes seeing, she counts it towards seven clean days.)

Question: It says in Pesachim (81a, and Nazir 15b) that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo (part of the day counts like the whole day);

It says there that this opinion finds a Zavah Gedolah (she saw three consecutive days, without even a partial clean day interrupting) when she saw [two consecutive days] Bein ha'Shemashos;

Does he hold like the Kusim?! The Gemara asks like this below (69a) according to Rav, who holds that the day she ceases to see counts towards seven clean days, "does Rav teach like the Kusim?!"

Answer: R. Yosi holds that Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo only at the end of her count, just like a Shomeres Yom [k'Neged Yom];

However, at the beginning, like the Kusim say [that even then, Miktzas ha'Yom k'Kulo], he agrees that we do not say so.

Reference: What is difficult from Rosh Hashanah (10a) we will explain below (72a DH ha'Ro'eh. Rava made a Kal v'Chomer from Nidah. A Zavah disproves it, according to R. Yosi! Tosfos answers that Rava spoke according to Rabanan, and unlike R. Yosi. Alternatively, Zavah is different, for she needs clean days.)

Observation: This is not true, since we ask below (69a) "does Rav teach like the Kusim?!" (Aruch l'Ner - Rami bar Chama merely asked why we cannot say like the Kusim, but surely he does not hold like them.)

Implied question: Is it possible that the Bi'ah was permitted, and she is Soser (cancels her count of clean days) through emitting after [becoming a Zavah through] seeing [blood] three consecutive days? (After three days, semen putrefies and it is no longer considered semen!)

Answer #1 (Ri): Yes, for we hold like R. Akiva, who requires six full Onos [for semen to putrefy. An Onah is day-time or night. If she had Bi'ah Shabbos morning, and saw blood in the afternoon on Shabbos, Sunday and Monday, the last sighting makes her a Zavah, if it is in the days of Zivah. Monday night began the seven clean days, and if she emits later that night, she is Soser this day that she began in cleanliness.)

Answer #2: [She emitted] after seeing once, after R. Zeira enacted that women count seven clean days for even one drop of blood the size of a mustard seed. (E.g. she had Bi'ah Shabbos night, and saw Shabbos morning. She started counting on Motza'ei Shabbos, and emitted on Sunday or Monday.)

Presumably, the days must be clean even from semen, for he enacted like Torah law.

Pesak: If a woman had Bi'ah and saw [blood] immediately, she may not begin to count clean days until the fourth day, for we require six full Onos. Also R. Chananel ruled like this.

Support: It seems that even Rava, who argued here with Rami bar Chama, retracted, since he did not answer him.

All the Amora'im hold below (42a) that she is Ro'eh and is Soser, even according to R. Shimon, and all the more so according to Rabanan.

Implied question: Below (37a), Rava said "v'Achar Tithar" - Tum'ah may not interrupt between them, and Abaye said that Zivah may not interrupt between them! (Rava still argues. He did not retract!)

Answer: That does not prove that Rava did not retract. There they discuss Tum'as Leidah. She is Teme'ah for seven days and is Metamei Mishkav u'Moshav, like a Nidah. Therefore, he says that [Tum'as Leidah] may not interrupt;

However, Keri, which is Soser only one day, does not interrupt.

Explanation: Rava holds that l'Taharaso does not connote that Tum'ah may not interrupt.

Explanation: We ask because the Kusi of our Mishnah is an Am ha'Aretz, since we consider him to be a Safek Bo'el Nidah. It was taught that we burn Terumah due to garments of an Am ha'Aretz!

Obviously, there are many Sefekos for which we do not burn Terumah, e.g. a Tumtum who saw white or red (Keri or blood) and similar cases.

Implied question: In the conclusion, he says that [the Kusi immersed now, and] it is a Safek if his last Bi'ah was a long time (more than a week) ago, and even if he was Bo'el recently, perhaps [the last time his wife truly became Nidah was] not within a week of yellow blood [so her Tevilah was valid, and she was Tehorah. I.e. we needed to show that it is a Sefek-Sefeka to explain why we do not burn Terumah!]

Answer #1: There was no need to show that it is a Sefek-Sefeka, like we explained. (Sometimes we do not burn Terumah even due to a single Safek.)

Answer #2: Perhaps it seemed proper to be stringent about this, like regarding Bigdei Am ha'Aretz. Therefore, we found a Sefek-Sefeka [to explain why we are lenient].

Question: Rashi explained in Shabbos (15b) regarding the Beraisa "for six Sefekos [we burn Terumah]... for a Safek of human urine next to an animal's urine;

He explained that there is a Safek whether it is animal urine, and even if it is human urine, perhaps it is from a Chaver [who was Tahor].

Our Gemara connotes that we do not burn due to a Sefek-Sefeka!

Answer: We do not equate decrees of Chachamim. Sometimes they saw reason to be stringent even about a Sefek-Sefeka.

Alternative explanation: R. Tam explained there that the [human] urine next to animal urine is surely of a Nochri. A Yisrael goes to the side [to urinate], like it says in Sanhedrin (104b).

Question #1: Even if it is Vadai of a Yisrael, we burn, for perhaps it is of an Am ha'Aretz, like we burn for Safek spit that is found, in that Beraisa!

Question #2: Also, we do not burn Terumah due to Tum'as Nochri, like it says below (34a), that Rabanan made an indication (they were Metaher a Nochris' blood), lest people burn Terumah and Kodshim due to it (Tum'as Nochrim).

Answer: It mentioned that it is next to animal urine, for then it is evident that it is not of an animal, for it does not resemble [the urine] next to it, so there is only one Safek.

However, if we were unsure whether it was of an animal, we would not burn [Terumah], for it is a Sefek-Sefeka.

Explanation: [After this] they (the Chaver's garments) touched Terumah.

Implied question: Why don't we establish it when the Kusi touched Terumah?

Answer: It is because our Mishnah does not discuss this.

Implied question: Why didn't we establish it when he trampled on it barefoot?

Answer: If he was wearing garments that his wife sat on when she was Nidah, even if he immersed, he is an Av ha'Tum'ah, like it says in Toras Kohanim, that one who carries a Midras is Metamei two [foods] and disqualifies one;

Therefore we establish it when he was naked. When he separated from the Midras (his garments), he was only a Rishon, like it says in Toras Kohanim, and he is not Metamei a Kli.

Observation: We could have said that [the case is that] he immersed also his garments, or he wore a Chaver's garments at the time.

Explanation: He held that he is a Chaver for other matters. In this (he considers yellow blood to be Dam Nidah) he intended to do properly.

Support: Also Abaye below [held like this].

Opinion #1: Only regarding spit they made him (an Am ha'Aretz) like a Zav, for it is possible to be careful and fulfill this;

However, an excessive stringency, such as Mishkav, Moshav and Heset, they did not make him like a Zav, for in Gitin (61b) it asks "we should be concerned lest Ishto Nidah moved them;

Inference: We are not concerned lest he himself moved them.

Support: Also our Sugya proves that he does not have Tum'as Midras;

If he had, above, when we asked about the six Sefekos, since we considered a Kusi to be an Am ha'Aretz, we should have asked from the Mishnah itself!

Why does it teach that [a Kusi] is Metamei a Mishkav below him like Elyon [of a Zav]? It should be like Tachtono (a Mishkav below a Zav)! Rather, surely he does not have Tum'as Midras.

Implied question: Why does it answer that the Kusi immersed, emerged [from the water] and stepped..., so that Tum'as Am ha'Aretz does not apply, for he immersed from it? (If he has no Tum'as Midras, there was no need to say that he immersed!)

Answer: If he did not immerse, he is Metamei through touching, for we establish the case to be that he is naked. (His foot touched the Chaver's garment.)