Citation: In Shabbos (90a), the text in some Seforim says "this is sand." The Gemara asks "a Beraisa says Boris and sand!"

Question: A Mishnah (Shabbos 80b) teaches the Shi'ur of liability for [Hotza'ah of] sand. (The Shi'ur is what is useful for fertilizer or plaster. This implies that it is not used for checking blood!)

Answer: There are two kinds of sand. One is for building, and one is for shampooing and laundering.

Observation: According to that text, it is fine that the conclusion says "rather, what is Boris? It is Ohel" and it does not say "rather, really..." (like it should say according to our text, for we return to the first answer).

Explanation: This was taught regarding Shevi'is.

Question: According to the text of Seforim in Shabbos (90a), which says "Boris and sand", this is astounding. Regarding what was this taught?

Suggestion: It was taught regarding Hotza'ah on Shabbos.

Objection: R. Yehudah said that the Shi'ur for Neser and Boris is to pass over a Kesem. This Shi'ur applies only to these seven ingredients! (How can we say that sand has the same Shi'ur?)

Answer: Perhaps Rabanan hold that the Boris and sand that are proper for shampooing and laundering have the same Shi'ur for Shabbos;

R. Yehudah argues only about Boris, and says that it is the amount to pass over a Kesem.

Explanation: Rashi explained that this is Gafris (sulfur). Also the Aruch says that the Targum of "Esh u'Gafris" (Tehilim 11) is Eshasa v'Kavrisa.

Question (Ri of Orlins): In Shabbos, we ask "does Shevi'is apply to Kavrisa?!" We should ask from our Mishnah in Shabbos (78b), which gives a different Shi'ur for Gafris and Zefes (pitch), i.e. to seal a hole [in a Kli for mercury]!

Answer #1: This is not difficult. In several places we could have asked from a Mishnah, and when the question is simpler from a Beraisa, we ask from it.

Answer #2: Since the Gemara arranged here [the question from the Beraisa about Shevi'is], it was brought there and [the question was] fixed [from there].

Explanation #1 (Rashi, Avodah Zarah 14a): This refers to a root that lasts in the ground in summer and winter.

Objection: If so, Shevi'is would not apply to grain, for it does not last in winter!

Explanation #2 (Rashi here): It does not have a root in the ground, like sulfur.

Explanation #1 (regarding Turanisa - Rashi, Avodah Zarah 14a): It is a kind of cedar, like it says in Rosh Hashanah (23a) that "Shitah" (one of the 10 kinds of cedars) is Turanisa.

Rebuttal: In Avodah Zarah (14a) it asks like here "does Shemitah apply to [Turanisa]?! A Beraisa says..." Surely, cedar has a root! (Aruch l'Ner - the Ramban says that we asked from a Mishnah that says "anything that is food for people, and has a root...")

Explanation #2: In Kesuvos (79b), Rashi explained that it is like an ore of alum. It is a kind of ground, like sulfur, which is not rooted in the ground.

Question: According to the text of Seforim in Shabbos (90a) that say "a Beraisa says Boris and sand!", why don't we answer from the beginning that there are two kinds of sand, like we answer in the conclusion regarding Ohel?

Answer: The Gemara knew that there are not two kinds of sand for laundering.

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Sanhedrin 49b): This is Vadai dye.

Rebuttal #1: If so, why does it say "but Taharos after the second laundering are Temei'os"? Since it did not go away initially through seven ingredients, Vadai it is dye!

Rebuttal #2: Below (62b), we challenge Reish Lakish, who says that something swallowed that can leave with difficulty is not called swallowed, from our Mishnah "it is dye";

What was the question? It is Vadai dye, so there is no swallowed Tum'ah at all!

Rebuttal #3: Why does it say that he immersed it? Even if he did not immerse it (it is Tahor)!

Explanation #2: We must explain that it is Safek dye. I.e. we can attribute that it is dye.

Implied question: (Why are we Metaher?) Sometimes Dam Nidah does not go away through seven ingredients!

Answer: Here it is a Sefek-Sefeka, aside from the reason of Bitul;

Perhaps it is dye, since it did not go away. And if you will say that it is blood, perhaps it came from elsewhere. Therefore, we are Metaher even retroactively.

Observation: The reason of Bitul does not help by itself, for regarding Dam Nidah, that we say that one passes the seven ingredients over it and is Mevatel it, this is only to be Metaher from now and onwards;

Retroactively it is Tamei mid'Rabanan, since he was adamant. He thought that it will go away through seven ingredients, and it was not yet Batel, even though mid'Oraisa it is Tahor. Since in the end it will not go away through seven ingredients, it is Batel (mid'Oraisa).

However, here there is a Sefek-Sefeka and Bitul. It is Tahor even mid'Rabanan, retroactively.

Observation: Due to the reason of Sefek-Sefeka alone we would not be Metaher, if not for the reason of Bitul, because blood normally comes from her body;

This is like we said above (3a). She did not engage with a bird, or pass through a meat market. From where did the blood come?

Proof: You are forced to say that without the reason of Bitul, we would not be Metaher it due to the Sefek-Sefeka, since it mentioned "he immersed it", even though we are lenient in other cases of Sefek-Sefeka;

And this is why we challenge Reish Lakish, for it is Batel, even though it can leave with difficulty through Tzafon (a potent cleaning agent).

Question: Still, why does it say that he immersed it, since it is Tahor due to Bitul and Sefek-Sefeka?

Answer: Granted, when the Kesem is dry it is Batel. However, while it is still wet, it is not Batel, and while it was wet, the garment touched it. Therefore, he must immerse it.

Explanation #3: It is Tzeva, i.e. a mere coloring from blood. We do not need the reason of Sefek-Sefeka;

Support: Now the reason of Bitul is explained in the Mishnah, from which we challenged Reish Lakish. (Even though it can leave with difficulty, it is Batel!)

Disclaimer: However, Explanation #2 seems primary, for "Tzeva" does not connote a [mere] coloring from blood, rather, actual dye.

Question: What was the question? He was adamant about it, since he passed Tzafon after the seven ingredients over it. We should say that "his Taharos are Temei'os" refers to [those made after] the second laundering!

Also from this reason, we say below that if he passed the [seven ingredients over it] a second time, Taharos made after the second laundering are Temei'os. Also here it should be Tamei!

Suggestion: Adamancy helps only when it goes away through the seven ingredients, for they remove easily, but Tzafon removes with difficulty. Even if he was adamant, they are Tehoros. (Since it does not come out easily, it is swallowed and Batel.)

Rejection: Below, Rav Papa concludes that if it can come out and he was adamant, all agree that it is Tamei, even though it comes out only with difficulty, i.e. through Tzafon!

Support: R. Yochanan challenged Reish Lakish from our Mishnah. Why is it Tehorah when it did not go away through the seven ingredients? It can go away through Tzafon! (Rather, we must say that if it comes out only through Tzafon, this is called "with difficulty.")

Answer: The Beraisa does not discuss [only] Taharos after the second laundering. [If it did,] it would be more proper to teach that his Taharos are Tehoros regarding [what he touched] after the first laundering, like it says in the Beraisa below! Rather, it refers also to [Taharos made after] the first laundering.

Implied question: [If so, the Gemara] could have challenged [this Beraisa] from the Beraisa below, which says "if he passed [the seven ingredients] over it a second time and [the Kesem] went away, his Taharos are Tehoros"!

Answer: [The Gemara] prefers to ask from [this Beraisa] itself.

Question: This is obvious! Our Mishnah does not mention Tzafon among the seven ingredients. What is the Chidush? Obviously, six do not suffice!

Answer: It teaches that even though it did not go away at all, and did not change through six ingredients, [and one might have thought that] we can say that it will not go away through the seventh...

The Beraisa teaches that this is not so. We should be stringent. Perhaps had he passed the seventh over it before the Tzafon, it would have gone away.

Assertion (Ri): Through repeating them, also dye go away.

Source: If not (rather, it is Vadai blood), why are [the Taharos] Tehoros even retroactively? There is not a Sefek-Sefeka. They should be Tamei retroactively, since there is only a single Safek (perhaps the blood came from elsewhere), like I explained in our Mishnah (DH Hitbilu).

Question: Our Mishnah, which taught "this is dye", in any case when he will launder it, he is adamant about it. Taharos after laundering should be Tamei!

Answer: Laundering [without the seven ingredients] is not adamancy [about the Kesem]. He merely wants to whiten it.

Question: In any case, when he launders it, the garment should become Tamei, for the blood comes out and it is not swallowed!

Answer: When it comes out, it is Batel also through laundering.

Question: Why does it need to say that it went away?

Suggestion: This is because it was emitted, and the garment is Tamei.

Rejection: If so, why does it mention that he was adamant?!

Answer: It mentioned that it went away, for then his adamancy takes effect, since his intent helped, that it went away;

Also, due to this our Mishnah taught that when it did not go away it is Tahor, even though he was adamant.

Explanation: Since it did not go away the first time, it is Batel in the garment. Even though it went away the second time, the garment is not Tamei when [the blood] leaves, because it was Batel in the laundry water.

Question: According to R. Aba, it is difficult why our Mishnah said "it is dye." Even Vadai blood is Tahor, even retroactively!

Since it did not go away the first time, it is revealed retroactively that it was Batel in the garment. Rather, surely it depends on adamancy (unlike R. Aba)!

Answer #1: It is not revealed retroactively that it was not proper to go away initially from the fact that it did not go away now, for it dries more and more. Perhaps initially it was [moist] and proper to go away!

Answer #2: [R. Aba] held like Reish Lakish, that a swallowed Tum'ah is Metamei. Therefore, [the Mishnah] needed to say "it is dye."

Question: If so, why must he pass the ingredients over it, since it suffices to be Mevatel in his heart?

Answer: Batla Daito Etzel Kol Adam (we ignore his intent, since it is unlike that of normal people) if he is Mevatel it without the seven ingredients.

Explanation #1: However, since a Kesem normally comes from her body, we are not lenient unless we can attribute to dye, like I explained in our Mishnah (62a DH Hitbilu).

This is unlike Dam Tevusah below. We are lenient about it, for it is mid'Rabanan. (Rashash - even though a woman becomes Nidah only through blood that came with Hargashah, R. Yochanan holds that the place of the Makor is Tamei, so a Kesem is Metamei garments mid'Oraisa.)

Explanation #2: It says "this is dye" in order to be Metaher even retroactively.

Explanation #3: Perhaps initially, when [the Kesem] had not dried so much, it could have come out.

Question: If so (we may not rely on R. Chiya for something that Rebbi did not teach), we should never ask a question from a Beraisa taught in the academy of R. Chiya and R. Oshaya! (Chulin 141a-b says that we may refute Amora'im only from such Beraisos!)

Answer #1: Regarding all of them, we can say like Ilfa said (Ta'anis 21a, Kesuvos 69b) "if anyone can say a matter taught in the academy of R. Chiya and R. Oshaya, and I will not show its source in our Mishnah [I will fall and die]";

It was obvious to Reish Lakish that there is no hint to this [Beraisa] in the Mishnayos.

Answer #2: It is logical that since our Mishnah mentioned a Kesem, and not Dam Nidah, this shows that one cannot be Mevatel Dam Nidah. [Reish Lakish] does not distinguish between for the future and retroactively.

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Bava Kama 101b): They put in a measure of water. If when they squeeze the water out, they find a Revi'is more [than they put in], if so, surely there was a Revi'is of blood.

Objection: Even if they do not find a Revi'is more, it can be that there was a Revi'is of blood, for the garment absorbed water and blood, for not everything can leave.

Explanation #2: A Tosefta in Ohalos (4:5) teaches "how do we estimate a Revi'is of blood absorbed in a garment? We bring a measure of water and launder [it in it], and bring [the same measure of] other water and put a Revi'is of blood in it";

If they have the same appearance [or the latter is lighter, the garment] is Tamei [b'Ohel], for if so also a Revi'is of water came out from the garment, for also water and blood remained in the garment, and its appearance will not be the same unless there was a Revi'is of blood from the beginning.

Note: E.g. if there is 45 times as much as water as blood, the garment retains blood and water based on this ratio, so the same ratio comes out. We assume that initially no water was absorbed in the garment.

Question: Why do we need a measure for the first water? All we need is to put [to compare] the amount of water that came out from the garment, less a Revi'is, and put a Revi'is of blood in it, and if they have the same appearance, it is Tamei!

Note: This question assumes that it is Tamei only if a Revi'is of blood leaves through laundering. Just above, Tosfos held that blood that remains absorbed join towards a Revi'is! Maharsha says that Tosfos should have elaborated. In Bava Kama (101b DH Ro'in), Tosfos asks why blood that remains absorbed joins to be Metamei. He answers that this is a stringency. Alternatively, the comparison is based on what came out. It mentioned the measure put in, for if we find that an extra Revi'is came out, we know that it is Tamei without comparing, like our Tosfos answers below.

Suggestion: The measure for the first water was mentioned only to give the same amount for the second.

Rejection: You are forced to say that we do not need in the second water the amount that the garment absorbed from the first [water]!

Answer: It mentioned the first measure, for if we find that a Revi'is more [came out] than was put in, one need not toil to bring second water, like Rashi explained.

Explanation: [It is Tehorah] even though the entire Revi'is was absorbed in the garment [since it did not come out].

Question: From when [the blood] fell together on the garment, it became Tamei!

Answer: We discuss when before a Revi'is fell, the garment absorbed [the blood] that cannot leave through Stam laundering, and it was Batel in the garment, and there was never a full Revi'is.

Question: Bava Kama (101a) brings a Beraisa that a garment died with peels of Orlah must be burned. This shows that appearance is significant. We ask a contradiction from the Mishnah of a Revi'is of blood absorbed in a garment, and answer "this is a leniency of a Revi'is";

This answer is only according to Reish Lakish. If so, it is difficult for R. Yochanan!

Answer: It is not difficult for R. Yochanan the comparison of Tum'ah to Orlah. Tum'ah depends on adamancy. Since it can leave only with difficulty, it is Batel. Absorbed Tum'ah is not Metamei;

Regarding Orlah, he wants the appearance. He is not Mevatel it.

There we give an answer that helps according to Reish Lakish. It means as follows. According to your (the Makshan's) words, that you compare Tum'ah to Isur, it is not difficult, for Dam Tevusah is mid'Rabanan.

Question: What was difficult? Perhaps it means as follows. Anything swallowed that cannot leave through Stam laundering is Tahor, even though it can leave with difficulty through Tzafon!

Inference: If it can leave through Stam laundering, it is Tamei, for "everything swallowed" is the Seifa of [the Mishnah brought] above [of blood] swallowed in a garment, and we established it to discuss Stam laundering;

I explained [the Reisha brought above] "if not, it is Tahor", even though it can leave with difficulty through Tzafon. Just the contrary, this is difficult for Reish Lakish!

Answer: "Everything swallowed" connotes that it cannot leave at all, for it was taught Stam, and even so, it properly applies to the Reisha. (This Dibur continues on the next Daf.)