Explanation #1 (Rashi): Only this Seifa, which says that she is believed, is like Rebbi, but the entire Reisha is like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who holds that three times makes a Chazakah.

Explanation #2 (Ri): Even Rebbi agrees that when she sees due to Bi'ah, we require three times to establish her, similar to the teaching above (63b), that [a Veses of] days [is established after] two sightings, Veses ha'Guf requires one sighting, and Vestos that Chachamim did not list require three sightings.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): From the third Bi'ah and onwards, she should have Bi'ah through checking. Why should she be divorced?

Inference: She is forbidden to the first [husband] even through checking.

Observation: According to Rashi's Perush, [Reish Lakish] could have asked that also to the second she should be permitted only through checking, since [Reish Lakish] did not know the answer that men's Evers are different (perhaps she will not see blood due to Bi'ah with another man).

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): She is permitted to the first through checking. We can establish the Beraisa when she does not want to toil to check, or she does not know how to check.

Support #1: The Yerushalmi asks that she should check herself with the second husband, and answers that men's Evers are different;

We can say that also the Bavli asks about the second husband!

Support #2: Also the Tosefta teaches "until when may she marry? Until the third." I.e. how much is permitted without checking?

Since he pursues Isur, to explain how much is forbidden even though through checking, this connotes that through checking she is permitted even to the first;

This is fine according to R. Tam. The first question is like the second.

Question: Since he did not know the answer that men's Evers are different, [Reish Lakish] should have asked that she should check herself in the second Bi'ah with the second husband. Regarding his Ever, we cannot say that men's Evers are different, for she already saw the first time through his Bi'ah;

Implied suggestion: [We can permit her] due to the Chazakah of Kochos! (I.e. there is not yet a Chazakah that she will see due to Bi'ah. Perhaps this Bi'ah was more forceful than usual.)

Rejection: We cannot permit her [due to this], for she was established [to see] through three Kochos of the first husband.

We can permit her only for the reason that not all Kochos (i.e. of different men) are the same, so the Chazakah of the first does not help for the second [to forbid him], and [Reish Lakish] did not yet know this reason!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): In place of envying your husband's love [of you], they will say how much he hates you, and their envy will go away from you.

Explanation #2 (Aruch): Their Ayin ha'Ra (envy) had power over you to distance you from your husband. Now inform them that you have much blood, and you will have very many children, and they will put their eyes on you, and say "she is fortunate that she has much blood, for through this she will have many children;

Through their envy of you, the blood will cease and you will be healed.

Explanation: [It does not suffice to wait five days, for] perhaps the first day she saw yellow blood, and it does not count towards [the seven days of Nidah].

Question: In several places it is written Belulah. We should say that the Torah repeated this to show that it is Me'akev!

Answer: All of them are needed for them themselves [to teach that l'Chatchilah, it must be mixed].

Question: We should say that since "Belulah va'Shemen" was repeated 12 times in the Parshah of [Chanukas ha'Mishkan of] the Nesi'im, it is Me'akev!

We say so in Menachos (19b). We challenge Shmuel regarding a Minchah. He does not learn [Mitzvos for] all generations from [what applies only for] a limited time. It says [regarding the Milu'im] "va'Ymalei Kapo Mimenah" - the Torah repeated this to teach that a full handful is Me'akev. (A Kohen may not use a Kli that holds this amount. Shmuel does not apply this to Menachos for all generations.)

We ask that Shmuel said that buckets [for blood] are Mekadesh dry [Kodshim], for it says "Shneihem Mele'im Soles", and we answer that there is different, since it was repeated 12 times to teach that it is Me'akev!

Answer: Perhaps there is some Drashah somewhere that mixing is not Me'akev.

Question: Since it is not Me'akev, also when Bilah is impossible, it should be Kosher!

Answer: It is reasonable that since the Torah was adamant l'Chatchilah to do the Mitzvah [of mixing], we require that it is proper to do so, even if it is not Me'akev. If not, the Mitzvah would be totally Batel, for he cannot do it.

Support: Similarly, in several places, e.g. the ability of water to come [on the entire body of one who immerses], it says "Kol Besaro", and we exclude Beis ha'Setarim (covered places), but even so, we require that it is proper for water to come everywhere on her skin (there is no Chatzitzah) and similarly in several places.

Question: An Arel or Tamei may send Korbanos [with a Shali'ach], even though they are not proper to do Semichah [for they may not enter the Mikdash]. This is not Me'akev.

(Why may he do so?) He cannot (he is not even proper) to do Semichah!

In Zevachim (33a), it says that mid'Oraisa, Shechitah must be immediately after Semichah.

Answer: The Torah included [bringing a Korban when he is not proper for Semichah] from '"mi'Zovo", and not from his Tzara'as.' The verse discusses bringing a Korban [after Taharah from Tum'as Zav]. Even though he is not Tahor from his Tzara'as (so he cannot enter the Mikdash to do Semichah), he may send his Korban Zivah.

Note: Acharonim question this. The verse discusses Taharah, and not Korban! Further, a Zav brings birds, which do not require Semichah! Chasam Sofer (Gitin 28b) says that Tosfos holds that the verse discusses the entire Parshah, including Korban. He holds that "v'Hevi Es Korbano... v'Samach" (it seems that he refers to Vayikra 4:23-24 or 4:28-29) connects bringing and Semichah. If a Tamei can make a Shali'ach to bring even though he cannot bring, the same applies regarding Semichah. Turei Even (Megilah 8a) asked these questions, and also that a Metzora may not send any Korban (Mo'ed Katan 15b)! Also, above (37a-b) the Gemara explained why we need '"mi'Zovo", and not from his Tzara'as', and similarly also "mi'Zovah" for a Zavah, for there is a stringency to each Tum'ah. If the verse discusses Korban, we cannot ask a question from Tum'ah! (Chasam Sofer answered that the verse discusses Tum'ah and Korban. However, we could have asked that we could not learn about Semichah from Zavah, for women never need to do Semichah! Perhaps the Gemara gave only one reason why we cannot learn Zav from Zavah - PF.) The Malbim (Metzora 59) says that we must change the text of Tosfos (also in Yevamos 104a, Gitin 28a, Zevachim 75a Menachos 62b) to say "mi'Nig'o v'Lo mi'Tum'aso."

Question: Why don't we require l'Chatchilah that water come to Beis ha'Setarim, just like [l'Chatchilah we require] Bilah, and reciting [the verses of] Chalitzah and Bikurim?

Answer: It is unreasonable [to require this] for Tevilah. The Torah is adamant only that the person become Tahor;

One should not say that l'Chatchilah it is required. Since b'Di'eved the person is Tahor, also l'Chatchilah it is not needed, and the Tevilah counts;

Distinction: Bilah, and reciting the verses of Bikurim and Chalitzah are Mitzvos. Therefore, l'Chatchilah they must be done.

Question: Since l'Chatchilah Bilah is required, in Menachos (103b), regarding the primary teaching of R. Zeira, it says that one may offer a voluntary Minchah offering of 60 Esronim and bring it in one Kli. If he volunteers 61 Esronim, he brings 60 in one Kli and one in another Kli, for [Chachamim] know that 60 can be mixed, but 61 cannot be mixed...

The Gemara asks, if they cannot be mixed, what is the problem? A Mishnah teaches that if it was not mixed, it is Kosher! We answer that R. Zeira taught that anything proper for...

Question: What was the question? Since l'Chatchilah it is a Mitzvah to mix, therefore it is a Mitzvah to bring it in two Kelim, in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of mixing!

Answer #1 (Ri): Since he vowed to bring a Minchah of 61, he does not fulfill his vow unless he brings a big Minchah. Therefore, since b'Di'eved it is Kosher without Bilah, he should bring in one Kli to fulfill his vow.

Implied question: Regarding two Esronim, we say that if he wants, he brings in two Kelim!

Answer: Even so, regarding 61 the matter is proven that he intended for a big Korban.

Answer #2: "One may offer a voluntary Minchah" refers to [one who vows to bring] one Minchah, which was said above there. Therefore, he should not divide it into two Kelim due to Bilah, since it is not Me'akev.

Question: The Sugya there is like R. Shimon, who holds that 61 cannot be mixed, and R. Shimon argues with Rabanan (102b), who say that [if one said] "it is Alai to bring a Minchah in one Kli", and he brought in two Kelim, [it is Kosher, but he was not Yotzei his vow; R. Shimon says that] he even fulfilled his vow;

Since b'Di'eved he was Yotzei in two Kelim, properly he should divide them in order to found the Mitzvah of mixing. It is still difficult, what was the question "if they cannot be mixed, what is the problem?... If it was not mixed, it is Kosher!"?

Answer #1: "A Minchah of 61" connotes one Minchah, more than a Stam Minchah for which he specified the size, even though he specified in one Kli.

Answer #2: This question "if they cannot be mixed, what is the problem?..." is according to Rabanan [who say that if he brought in two Kelim, he was not Yotzei]. Will we say that the Tana (i.e. Rabanan) hold like R. Shimon, that 61 are not mixed well?! (If so, why did they challenge him "do you say that 60 can be mixed, but 61 cannot?!")

Question: A Mishnah in Chulin (10a) says that if he immersed and came up and a Chatzitzah was found on him, even if he engaged the entire day with that species, his Tevilah did not count, unless he says "it is clear to me that it was not on me before [Tevilah]"!

Answer #1: There, he did not immerse right after Chafifah (bathing), even though there we do not distinguish.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): The Gemara in Chulin is for Taharos. We are more stringent, that even if he immersed right after Chafifah, the Tevilah does not help. Here we discuss Tevilah for [Heter to her husband].

Implied question: At the end of our Sugya, it says that the Halachah does not follow any of these teachings. These were said for Taharos!

Answer: This does not refer to this teaching, rather, all the teachings from that of a Kli Cheres and onwards.

Answer #3 (Ri): If [the Gemara in Chulin] refers to Taharos, we can establish it when she did not do Chafifah at all, like it says in the Yerushalmi in Pesachim, at the end of the second Perek;

Citation (Yerushalmi): A Nidah does Chafifah and combs and immerses. A Kohenes does not do Chafifah and comb. A Nidah Kohenes does Chafifah and combs, for we should not distinguish between one Nidah and another;

It explains the reason there, because a Kohenes frequently immerses [for Terumah, Chachamim] were not stringent on her. It suffices to look [that there is no Chatzitzah].

Answer #4 (R. Tam): Chafifah applies only to the head. The Gemara in Chulin discusses the rest of the body, to which Chafifah does not apply.

Support #1: It connotes like this above. "A woman may do Chafifah only in hot water." It says that the reason is because [cold water] hardens the hair (and keeps dirt in).

Inference: Since it did not say "she may not do Chafifah to her head", this shows that whenever Chafifah applies, the reason of hardening the hair applies, for it is in a place of hair.

Support #2 (Ri): It says in Bava Kama (82a) regarding 10 enactments of Ezra that a woman does Chafifah and immerses. The Gemara asks that this is mid'Oraisa. ("Es Besaro" teaches that nothing may separate his flesh from the water. "Es Besaro" includes what is secondary to his flesh.) What is this? It is hair;

The Gemara answers that mid'Oraisa, it suffices to look if [hairs] are tied. Ezra enacted Chafifah;

Since it says "if they are tied", this shows that the primary Chafifah is on the head. In several places, Chafifah is mentioned regarding the head.

Question #1: However, the Machzor of R. Shamrayah explains in the name of Rashi that Chafifah applies to the entire body, like it says in Shabbos (120b) "if Hash-m's name was written on one's skin, he may not do Chafifah."

Answer: In all Seforim, it does not say so, rather, "he may not bathe or anoint."

Question #2: It brings below (67b) regarding the law that a woman does Chafifah at night and immerses at night, the episode in the Reish Galusa's house. [Rav Nachman] told her [you can do Chafifah now and immerse tonight, for] surely you do not lack slaves, basins or Tashtekei (this will be explained below);

Explanation: You do not lack slaves to bring water to heat it to bathe the entire body. Bathing the head does not require so much [water to require at least two slaves or basins]!

Answer: According to R. Tam, there is no proof. He explained "you do not lack slaves to heat water to cast into the cold [Mikveh] water in which she will immerse. Tashtekei is of gold. It is a seat to sit on in the bathhouse;

Rebbeinu Sadya [Gaon] explained that Tashtekei are big combs, i.e. for Chafifah of the head. Therefore, there is no proof to require Chafifah of the body, just merely to look, like suffices for the head mid'Oraisa.

Pesak: Even though we postulate, one should not act [like our postulation that Chafifah is only on the head]. Rather, Chafifah is required on the entire body. This is the custom of all women nowadays, to bathe the entire body.

Implied question: Here we do not discuss at all the need to immerse right after Chafifah!

Answer: Rather, regarding a Chatzitzah found on her after Tevilah, to attribute [that it arose] after Tevilah, it says that they argue about whether this is only if Tevilah is right after Chafifah.

Explanation: This is the text. The decree of bathhouses applies, for it is frequent and common to find Klei Cheres there for the sake of hot water.

Version #1: It is written in Seforim "even if now there is none, I can say that it fell through shaking.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): In a port, because boats are common there, there is always mud. Even if now there is no mud on her [feet], I can say that it fell through shaking. When she left the water, she shook her feet in the water, and it fell.

He also explained below that "Maftzei in the days of Tishrei" means putting mats under [his daughters' feet], due to the mud.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam, from R. Chananel): She may not immerse in a port, because men are common there, and she fears [being seen] and rushes due to shame of men found there.

Support: This is like [not immersing on] a thick log (taught above). The reason is due to fear.

Explanation #2 (cont.): He explained below that "Maftzei" are mats, like a wall in the river for modesty, so passersby will not see [his daughter immersing].

Version #2: The text does not say here "even though now there is none", until below, regarding one who gave a cooked food to her son and immersed, the Tevilah does not count. Even though now there is none, I can say that it fell through Radyuni;

R. Tam explains that the word has two "Dalet"s (i.e. Dadyuni). It is an expression of dislocation. R. Chananel explains that it is an expression of slipping, and it fell in the descent (to the water).

Support: [Also] the Aruch explained that "Maftzei" was for modesty.

Opinion #1 (R. Chananel and the Aruch): He made Mikva'os in the days of Nisan (so they would not immerse in the river), for he was concerned for Mayim She'uvim (water that was in a Kli).

Question: This is astounding! How does She'uvim apply [to a river]?!

Answer: Many pipes draw water to rivers. [The water] is in Kelim that were carved out and later fixed [in the ground].

Opinion #2: Rashi's opinion is primary. [Rainwater] that drips is like a Mikveh, and it is Metaher only if it is contained, but not flowing.

Observation: Rashi explained why we cannot explain [that he did so in order that they immerse in] Mayim Chayim, for a Tosefta teaches that a stringency of a Zav over a Zavah is that a Zav must immerse in Mayim Chayim (but a Zavah or Nidah need not).