Implied Question: The Ram notes why, according to Rashi who explains in the Mishnah that the Chazan sees where the children are reading by the light of the candle, the Gemara does not ask its question from our Mishnah. (Why indeed?)

Answer: This is because it is possible to say that they are not allowed to do so, and nobody is protesting their action. However, the Tosefta that states, "they would organize" implies that this is permitted.

Question: Didn't we say in Sotah (48a) that Yochanan Kohen Gadol decreed Dmai was forbidden, as he sent messengers around the borders of Israel and saw that only Terumah Gedolah was being taken?

Answer: This means that the only thing that everyone was taking was Terumah Gedolah. However, most people were indeed taking Ma'asros as well.

Implied Question: They suspected the minority of people who did not take Ma'asros in our Gemara. (Why suspect a person is part of the minority?)

Answer: This is because it was a very common (i.e. significant) minority, and there were indeed many who were eating food that had not been tithed.

Observation: The contradiction in Abaye and Rava is explained in Kesuvos (24a) in the discussion about suspecting those who help (in order to get Terumos and Ma'asros, see there).

Explanation #1: It is logical to forbid this, as a person has a strong evil desire in such a situation (to be with his friend's wife).

Explanation #2: Rashi explains that they are even forbidden to be secluded together according to Torah law (and this is the reason why they cannot be in the same bed together).

Question: This does not seem to be correct, as it implies he wants to forbid a person from being secluded with any Nidah. This is difficult, as we do not derive the Torah prohibition of Yichud (regarding a person's wife who is a Nidah) from a married woman, and we say it does not apply to a (person's wife who is a) Nidah as the Pasuk states, "Fenced in by roses" (see Sanhedrin 37a).

Question (cont.): The fact that he is forbidden to be in the same bed with her even when they are wearing clothes is only a Rabbinic law, even when it is regarding someone else's wife. It is difficult to say we are going to compare a person's wife who is a Nidah to a married woman due to Yichud and therefore forbid this with one's wife, as it would be more understandable to use this comparison to forbid Yichud with one's wife but permit them to be in the same bed together with their clothes on when there is no Yichud, such as when there is a door open to the public domain. This would be permitted due to the Pasuk, "Fenced in by roses" (that Pasuk is used in Sanhedrin ibid. to indicate that there is a case where one can be lenient with his wife, as they are careful not to transgress).

Question: This is difficult. How do we know they argue? Perhaps even if they are both wearing clothes it is forbidden by Rabbinic law?

Opinion #1: Rashi explains here that since according to Torah law the only thing that is prohibited is actual relations, according to Rabbinic law the only thing that is prohibited is if their skins touch.

Question #1: This is unclear, as Rebbi Pedas probably does not argue on the Mishnah that says that according to Rabbinic law a Zav may not eat together with a Zavah (even though their skins are not touching)!

Question #2: Additionally, doesn't Rebbi Pedas agree that it is forbidden to be in the same bed as a married woman if both people are wearing clothes?

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that when the Gemara says "he argues on Rebbi Pedas" it means that since the Torah only forbade being close in a manner of forbidden relations, we should only make decrees forbidding situations that are like the Torah prohibition.

Opinion #2 (cont.): This is in a case where there are two people together and they are engaging in a normal behavior, such as the Mishnah's law that a Zav should not eat together with a Zavah. However, if they are each wearing their clothes in bed, which is a case where they are two people together but they are engaged in an abnormal behavior (of being clothed while in bed), Rebbi Pedas will hold that even if one is doing so with a married woman it is permitted.

Opinion #3: The Ri explains that "he argues on Rebbi Pedas" means that since Rebbi Pedas holds that "being close" in this context only refers to actual relations, and therefore when the Torah says, "And to a woman who is a Nidah one should not come close" it is only referring to actual relations, we cannot derive using a comparison from a married woman that it is forbidden for a person to sleep in the same bed with his wife who is a Nidah while they are clothed, as this will take the term "come close" out of its context.

Question: This is forced, as "He did not make his friend's wife impure" implies he did not have relations with her, and even so we say that he cannot be in the same bed as his friend's wife even if they are both clothed.

Explanation: Ula knew that he would not have bad thoughts while doing so, as he was completely righteous. This is as the Gemara says in Kesuvos (17a) that Rav Ada bar Ahavah would put the bride on his shoulders and dance. The Rabbanan said to him, "Can we do that?" He replied, "If you look at her as if she is merely a beam, you may. If you do not, you cannot."

Explanation (cont.): Our Gemara did not bother to explain and further this discussion regarding why Ula did so.

Explanation #1: He was not saying that there should be a difference between clean days (leading up to immersion) versus the days when she was seeing blood.

Proof: This as Rebbi Akiva says clearly later (64b) that a woman is considered a Nidah until she goes to the Mikvah.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Rather, Eliyahu knew that this man had been lenient during her clean days.

Opinion: Rabeinu Chananel and Rashi explained in Kesuvos (61a) regarding Shmuel that his wife would pour him a drink with her let hand during her clean days.

Question: This does not appear to be correct, as I explained above (that there is no difference between clean days leading up to immersion and when she is seeing blood).

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Chananel explains that they used to immerse twice, once after she had seven Nidah days and was therefore pure according to Torah law, and once after she had seven clean days (and she was then pure even according to Rabbinic law). This is why this scholar was lenient.

Opinion: Rashi used to forbid handing a key from his hand to his wife's hand while she was a Nidah.

Proof: The Ri understands that there is somewhat of a proof to this from the Tana Dvei Eliahu (Rabah, 16). It says there that Eliyahu first asked, "Did you bring him oil, did you bring him the jug?" (This implies it would have been forbidden for her to hand him these things.)

Implied Question: However, there the Tana Dvei Eliyahu concludes, "And he touched your small finger." (It is therefore not proof that the handing itself is a problem.)

Proof: The Gemara says in Kesuvos (ibid.) that Abaye's wife used to put his cup by the mouth of the barrel, and Rava's wife used to put his cup by his pillow. (Isn't this proof that she couldn't hand it to him?)

Question: There is no proof, as perhaps specifically regarding mixing the cup of wine here is more fondness, as stated there. However, this may not apply to other things.

Implied Question: There is no proof (against Rashi and Rabeinu Chananel in (b) above, see Maharam) from the fact that she told Eliyahu that he ate and drank with her (during the time of her clean days). (Why not? Doesn't Eliyahu's reply show that there is no difference between attempted clean days and when she is bleeding?)

Answer: It is possible that he was only upset regarding the fact that they slept in the same bed (not regarding the eating and drinking).

Implied Question: Palti ben Layish did sleep in the same bed as Michal, and stuck a sword in between them (see Sanhedrin 19b). (How was this sufficient if they were prohibited from sleeping in the same bed?)

Answer #1: It is possible to say that he was very far away from her (in the bed). The door was open to the public domain, and therefore there was no problem of Yichud.

Answer #2: Alternatively, perhaps Palti held like (King) Shaul that Michal was not Mekudeshes to Dovid, and he was merely stringent not to have relations with her.

Proof: He brings proof from the Medrash in Mishpatin that says, "Wherever it says, "And these" it is adding onto the previous statement, as opposed to "These" (without "And") that indicates it is breaking from the previous statement."

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this Medrash, as the Pasuk, "These are the words of the covenant" are referring to what was stated previously.

Explanation: It does not say afterwards what it said in the previous Mishnah.)

Explanation: If it would have merely stated "food that is a Rishon," we would not know from there that it also applies to food that is a Sheini. If the Tana would have merely said, "food that is a Sheini" I would think that food that is a Rishon also causes the Terumah to become impure (not just invalid).

Explanation: It is not relevant to discuss liquids that are a Rishon or Sheini, as liquids are always a Rishon.

Explanation (cont.): Despite the fact that this was not yet decreed, as I will explain later, they intended to make this decree immediately.

Explanation (cont.): The Mishnah needed to state liquids and food, as stated later, since the case of liquids was uncommon. If the Tana only said liquids, I would think that this specifically applies to liquids that are stringent, but it does not invalidate food.

Question: Why is this case necessary if he is anyway a Tevul Yom?

Answer: The novelty (i.e. practical difference between this case and a Tevul Yom) is that even if it was past sundown he invalidates Terumah until he immerses again.

Question: Why did they decree that a person who was pure invalidates Terumah only if the water fell on him, but not if his head and most of his body went into Mayim Sheuvin, like a Tevul Yom?

Answer: The Ri understands that regarding a person who was pure they did not want to make a decree unless the water fell on him. This was commonly done when people bathed in dirty water, as stated later that they would put over them three Lug of Mayim Sheuvim. [See Tosfos in Gitin 16a, DH "Haba."]