Addition: In R. Chananel's Perush is written another teaching not in our Seforim. I.e. if she is Mafsheles her son and immerses, the Tevilah does not count.

Explanation: She carries her son on her back and she is naked. Her clothes were not on her, and she immersed. The Tevilah does not count, for we are concerned lest there was mud or similar matters on the child, and it stuck to his mother, and it is a Chatzitzah in Tevilah, and she did not know;

Even though now we see that there is nothing on her, we are concerned lest it fell in the ascent from Tevilah b'Radyuni. I.e. this is like R. Chananel explained [above 66a DH Ishah] it slipped and fell while she descended (but here we discuss on the ascent).

Assertion: We must say that she carried her son even before the Tevilah, right before, and not actually during the Tevilah [for if so, her son himself would be a Chatzitzah].

Explanation: Only what is in the eye [is not a Chatzitzah if it is moist], for the tears in the eye moisten it and do not allow it to dry;

However, dirt outside the eye, even if it is moist, is a Chatzitzah.

Support: It connotes like this in Mikva'os (9:2) regarding "the following are Chatzitzos", and it teaches dirt outside the eye. Regarding "the following are not Chatzitzos", it teaches dirt in the eye;

It does not distinguish between moist and dry, rather, only between outside the eye and in the eye. This refers to moist, but dry dirt is a Chatzitzah even in the eye.

Pesak: Filth under the fingernail is a Chatzitzah.

Implied question - Citation (Mikva'os 9:2 - Mishnah): The following are not Chatzitzos in Tevilah - filth on the skin and filth under the fingernail.

Answer: That refers to moist, similar to filth on the skin. If it were dry, why is it not a Chatzitzah?!

Also [we must distinguish between moist and dry, for] regarding "the following are Chatzitzos", it teaches clumps of filth on the skin and dough under the fingernail.

Consequence: Therefore, one should teach every woman who immerses that she not open her eyes too much and not close her eyes too much, according to Rashi, that the text does not say below "these teachings are for Taharos."

Pesak: According to all explanations, one must teach her to open her mouth so it will be proper for water to enter, like we said above that every Beis ha'Setarim must be proper for water to enter. (Sidrei Taharah says that we do not hold like Tosfos. Even according to Tosfos, it suffices to open her mouth a drop, for a moment. - PF)

Support #1: [The Gemara] brings also from Rebbi's Shifchah who immersed, and a bone was found between her teeth, and Rebbi obligated her to immerse again.

Support #2 - Citation (Mikva'os 8:5 - Mishnah): If a Nidah put coins in her mouth, descended and immersed, she is Tehorah from her Tum'ah, but she is Temei'ah due to her saliva;

Citation (cont.): If she put hair in her mouth or clenched her lips, it is as if she did not immerse.

Pesak: Also, one must teach her to separate her thighs a little, like it says below, like one who weaves, and like one who nurses her son regarding lifting the breast a little from the chest.

Version #1: After this, it is written in R. Chananel's Perush and in some Seforim "the Halachah does not follow any of these teachings. These were said for Taharos;

However, for her husband she is Tehorah, like Reish Lakish taught "a woman immerses only the way she develops." (Tosfos ha'Rosh - the way she normally is. She does not open or close her eyes too much, or clench her lips...)

Version #2: In one Teshuvah, Rashi wrote that the text does not say so;

Source #1: It says "however, for her husband she is Tehorah, like Reish Lakish taught." How is Reish Lakish's teaching relevant to the teachings above?! (Aruch l'Ner - in R. Tam's text, it says "only Reish Lakish's stringency applies even for her husband.")

Source #2: All these teachings, of Rav, Rav Gidal, and Rami bar Chama, [the authors] were in Bavel, and they were needed for their locale. (Chachamim decreed Tum'ah on Chutz la'Aretz, so there were Taharos only in Eretz Yisrael. Tevilah in Bavel is only to permit a woman to her husband.) It is difficult to say that they spoke to people of Eretz Yisrael!

Note: Aruch l'Ner answers that initially these stringencies were made for Taharos. These Amora'im in Bavel extended them even for her husband. The Gemara rules unlike these Amora'im; we are stringent only for Taharos. This answers all the questions. Rashash - Rashi understood the text [that he rejects] to say that the stringencies were taught only for Taharos.

Source #3: Shmuel's father made Mikva'os for his daughters in Bavel.

Source #4: All of these were taught in the feminine - "a woman may not stand on a Kli Cheres", "a woman may not immerse in a port", "if a woman gave a cooked food to her son", "if she opened her eyes..." If they were for the sake of Taharos (which apply also to men), it would not need to mention every time "a woman"!

Source #5: A Beraisa in Yevamos (47b) says that anything that is a Chatzitzah in Tevilah is a Chatzitzah for a convert, freed slave and Nidah. This refers to [Heter of] a Nidah to her husband. If it were for Taharos, why did it mention Nidah [more than other Temei'im]?

Also, [a Nidah] is similar to a convert and freed slave [with which she was taught], which discusses Tevilah of Isur v'Heter. [The Beraisa] teaches that any Chatzitzah in Tevilah of Tum'ah and Taharah is a Chatzitzah for Isur v'Heter.

Explanation #1: Rashi explained in the Teshuvah that all the stringencies of these teachings apply nowadays to Tevilah of a Nidah for her husband.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): The text of Seforim is correct, and it is brought also in R. Chananel, Bahag and Hilchos Nidah that Rav Sadya [Gaon] explained.

Source: We must distinguish like this, for above (66b) we said that water need not enter Beis ha'Setarim, and in Mikva'os (Perek 9) regarding "the following are a Chatzitzah in a person", it teaches Beis ha'Setarim in a woman. This shows that water must enter. (Tosfos ha'Rosh, Beis Yosef YD 198 and Chidud Halachos question this. If there is a Chatzitzah, it is not proper for water to enter, and it is Me'akev also for her husband! Perhaps Tosfos holds like he wrote in the previous Dibur, that she must open her mouth, for every Beis ha'Setarim must be proper for water to enter. According to the text of Seforim, we rule like this only for Taharos. For her husband, it suffices that there is no Chatzitzah in her mouth - PF.)

Rather, surely that [Mishnah] is for Taharos, and our Sugya is for her husband. (Rashash points out that there, Mishnah 8:5 says that water need not enter Beis ha'Setarim, and it discusses Taharos! We must say that it refers to a different Beis ha'Setarim, like Tosfos distinguishes below.)

Implied question: [A Beraisa] in Yevamos (47b) taught that anything that is a Chatzitzah in Tevilah is a Chatzitzah for a convert... and Nidah!

Answer: It refers to the Chatzitzos in Perek 9 of Mikva'os, which are a Chatzitzah for [Heter to] her husband. (Below, Tosfos asks that that Perek discusses Taharos.) It is normal that the Beraisa discusses the case of the Mishnah;

However, these stringencies of Kli Cheres, a log, a port, Maftzei, carrying [her son], bloodletters' wounds and dirt [of the eye], are more stringent than the Mishnah, for Perek 9 [of Mikva'os] teaches that dirt in the eye is not a Chatzitzah. This connotes that whether wet or dry, it is not a Chatzitzah, since it did not distinguish;

Also mascara, and opening the eyes and closing [them] and all the other stringencies, the Halachah does not follow them, only the stringency of Reish Lakish, which is even for her husband.

Question #1 (against R. Tam): This Mishnah (9:2) that Beis ha'Setarim of a woman is a Chatzitzah, which he establishes for Taharos, teaches also dirt in the eye. Outside the eye it is a Chatzitzah, and in the eye it is not a Chatzitzah. He establishes it for her husband! (R. Tam said that the Mishnah connotes that dirt in the eye is not a Chatzitzah, even if it is dry. Here, Mar Ukva says that dry is a Chatzitzah. R. Tam must say that Mar Ukva discusses Taharos, and the Mishnah discusses her husband. This is difficult, for R. Tam explains that Beis ha'Setarim in that same Mishnah refers to Taharos!)

Question #2: [R. Tam] explained that the Beraisa in Yevamos (47b) "and everything that is a Chatzitzah in Tevilah [is a Chatzitzah for... Nidah]" applies to the Mishnah in Taharos, which discusses Heter to her husband. (How can he say that regarding Beis ha'Setarim, the Mishnah discusses only Taharos?)

Rebuttal (of R. Tam's source): He asked from Beis ha'Setarim in our Sugya (66b; we said that water need not enter) to the Mishnah in Mikva'os (9:2, which says that Chatzitzah applies there. He derived that we distinguish Taharos, from Heter to her husband.)

[His question] is not difficult at all. The Seifa (9:3), regarding "the following are not a Chatzitzah", teaches Beis ha'Setarim in a man. This is like our Sugya!

Question: One must give a reason in this clause itself. What is the difference between Beis ha'Setarim of a man and of a woman?

Answer: There is Beis ha'Setarim that a woman is adamant about, but a man is not (i.e. Beis ha'Ervah - Maharsha). Regarding this it distinguishes between a man and a woman.

Explanation: Dirt in the eye (in Mishnah 9:2) discusses only moist, like I explained. (Therefore, the Mishnah is not difficult for Mar Ukva in our Sugya. This is unlike R. Tam, who said that the Mishnah connotes in every case, even if it is dry.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This pertains to Beis ha'Ervah.

Rebuttal #1: This is taught in Toras Kohanim regarding the breast, like I explained above.

Rebuttal #2: Here it taught "l'Chol Mar'eh Einei ha'Kohen" to exclude Beis ha'Setarim. From here they said that a man is seen like one who hoes or harvests olives - he is seen like one who hoes regarding [Tzara'as in] Beis ha'Setarim, and like one who harvests olives regarding the underarm;

A woman is seen like one who weaves or nurses her son - she is seen like one who nurses regarding under the breast, and like one who weaves regarding [Tzara'as on] her right hand. Rebbi says, [she is seen] like one who spins flax regarding her left hand;

In Nega'im (2:4) it is taught also like one who arranges, i.e. she arranges [dough to bake] bread, regarding Beis ha'Setarim.

Suggestion: It is forbidden only regarding a Nidah, due to Serach Bitah (lest her daughter do similarly), for [her daughter] thinks that it is her seventh day, and [the daughter] will immerse on the seventh day and have Bi'ah [that same day], and there is Kares;

However, a Zavah, even if her daughter thinks that it is day seven, there is no Torah Isur. It is a mere concern lest she see after immersing on day seven, like R. Shimon. (Therefore, we do not decree lest the daughter immerse during the day from Zivah.)

Rejection: We cannot say so, for Rava established in Mechuza to immerse on the eighth day, due to Avolai (Nochri guards of the city, or danger of falling). If not for Avolai it would be forbidden, even though R. Zeira's stringency applied in [Rava's] days, and she immerses on the eighth!

This is like Rav Papa said to Abaye - how do we understand Rava? Rabanan considered all women [who saw blood] like Safek Zavos. Abaye and Rava were in the same generation!

Pesak: Therefore, even nowadays it is forbidden to immerse during the day, whether on the eighth or the ninth.

Limitation #1 (R. Tam): We are concerned only that it is night when she returns home. She need not leave her house [to go to immerse] at night, for [if it is night when she returns] she cannot come to Safek;

There is no concern that if she immerses during the day close to dark that her daughter will immerse when much time remains in the day. The daughter senses that she should immerse close to dark, like her mother.

Limitation #2: In a place where there is concern for lewd people of the city or thieves, it is permitted [to immerse during the day], like it says in our Sugya.

Opinion #1: R. Meshulam permitted a woman, in a city with thieves, to do Chafifah on Erev Shabbos on her seventh day and immerse on Shabbos, which is her eighth day, during the day, due to thieves.

Opinion #2: R. Tam forbids, for we do not find that the Gemara permitted two leniencies - to distance Chafifah from Tevilah, and Serach Bitah.

Explanation: We must say that it is forbidden to do so, i.e. to immerse [on the seventh day]. If [to do so] refers to Bi'ah [on day seven, after Tevilah], why does it say "lest she come to Safek"? She already came to Safek, at the time of Bi'ah, lest she will see [during the day]. It should have said "lest she come to Vadai"!

Also, how do Rabanan permit Bi'ah? Surely, we say below (72a) "this is evil conduct" regarding a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom who immersed on her second day from her sighting, and it says that what she touches and her Bi'ah is Teluyah (in Safek. If she will see during the day, it is Tamei/ was forbidden)!

Support: Also our Sugya connotes like this. [Rav Papa] asked "they should immerse on day seven", and [Abaye and Rava] answer [that they do not,] due to R. Shimon. This shows that R. Shimon forbids Tevilah.

Rebuttal: We can reject this. Really, it refers to Bi'ah, but R. Shimon permits Tevilah, just afterwards [Abaye and Rava] were stringent to forbid even Tevilah. This is a decree, lest she have Bi'ah.

Question: Above (29b), in the Sugya of To'ah (a woman who is unsure what and when she miscarried. Due to multiple Sefekos, she immerses 95 times, but Bi'ah is permitted only one night through them), it asks "she should be permitted to have Bi'ah on day 21!", and answers that the Tana is R. Shimon, who says that it is forbidden to do so;

Inference: He refers to Bi'ah. Surely she immerses during the day, for [the Tana holds that] Tevilah bi'Zmanah Mitzvah (it is a Mitzvah to immerse at the first possible time. This is why she immerses 95 times!)

Answer: It means as follows. [The Tana] is R. Shimon, who says that it is forbidden to do so, to immerse during the day, lest she come to Safek, to have Bi'ah, for the Bi'ah will be Teluyah;

Therefore, for this To'ah, even though she has multiple Sefekos, for perhaps she was not a Zavah at all, and [even] if she was a Zavah, perhaps she give birth a long time ago (and already finished her seven clean days), and perhaps she will not see, [even so] she may not have Bi'ah according to R. Shimon;

However, the Tevilah is permitted even according to R. Shimon. He permits her to immerse, because Tevilah bi'Zmanah Mitzvah.