Previous daf

1)

(a) If someone walked down one of two paths, one of which is Tamei (because it was built over a grave), and if he does not remember which one, he is Safek Tamei.
That cannot be the case referred to in the Beraisa of 'Chalasah Teluyah', because even if he touched pure Chulin, it would be Tamei mi'Safek, so why would the Beraisa need to tell us this by Chalah?

(b) 'Nish'an' (a Mishnah in Zavin) is when a Zav and a Tahor person are unloading or loading a heavy load from or onto a donkey. We suspect that, perhaps, due to the weight of the load, the one leaned against the other, so that the Tahor person became Tamei be'Heset. Since this is only a suspicion, it remains no more than a Chumra, which applies to Terumah, but not to Chulin.
The Chidush in the Beraisa is that 'Chulin ha'Tavul le'Chalah' is considered Chalah.

(a) A Tevul Yom, although a source of Tum'ah, is no more than a Sheini le'Tum'ah.

(b) Chazal only forbade a case of Safek Tum'ah by 'Chulin ha'Tevulin le'Chalah', where at least if it was Vaday Tamei, it would be Metamei Chulin. Since a Tevul Yom is not Metamei Chulin (because a Sheini makes a Shelishi, and there is no Shelishi by Chulin), Chazal were not strict by 'Chulin ha'Tevulin le'Chalah' either.

(c) 'Mei'es Le'es she'be'Nidah' is not Metamei 'Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas Terumah', because it contains no real Terumah or Chalah. But this does not include 'Chulin ha'Tevulin le'Chalah' which does. Alternatively, we could say that, even if 'Chulin ha'Tevulin le'Chalah' *is* considered Chalah, Chazal did not decree by 'Mei'es Le'es she'be'Nidah', because the whole institution of 'Mei'es Le'es she'be'Nidah' is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and they confined their decree to *real* Terumah and Chalah, not to 'Chulin she'Na'asu', and not even to 'Chulin ha'Tevulin le'Chalah'.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer says Dayah Sha'atah by a Besulah, a woman who is pregnant, one who is feeding and by an old woman.

(b) A Besulah in this regard, is one who has never seen blood, even if she is married - even if she saw blood because of marriage or birth.

(c) A woman is called pregnant in this regard, as soon as it is noticeable that she is pregnant; and she is called a feeding mother - according to the Mishnah - until she weans her baby.

(d) The Chachamim say Dayah Sha'atah up to twenty-four months (which everyone agrees is the normal feeding period), whether she feeds the baby or not.

4)

(a) An old woman, according to the Mishnah, is a combination of old age and when she has stopped seeing blood for three Onos (nine months).

(b) According to Rebbi Eliezer, we will say Dayah Sha'atah by any woman who does not see blood for nine months.

(c) Rebbi Yossi holds three Onos by a pregnant and a feeding woman, unlike Rebbi Eliezer and the Tana Kama, who agree that in the case of a pregnant and a feeding woman, we say Dayah Sha'atah anyway.

(d) If a Besulah, pregnant woman, or an old woman see blood again for a second time, after not seeing for three Onos, then she will be Metamei Mei'es Le'es once more.

(e) This Chumra will not apply if she saw through something which happened (through jumping , or because she was afraid or on account of something which she ate), in which case we will still say Dayah Sha'atah; the next time that she sees blood however, she will be Metamei retroactively, Mei'es Le'es.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer did not understand how Rebbi Yehoshua could present as an argument, the fact that he had only heard that we say Dayah Sha'atah by a Besulah.
How can anyone anybody bring as a proof that what he did not hear? Whom do we ask to come and testify in Beis-Din that they have seen the new moon- someone who *has* seen it, or someone who hasn't? So surely, Rebbi Eliezer maintained, since he had heard, and Rebbi Yehoshua had not, the Halachah had to be like the one who *did* hear.

(b) Although Rebbi Yehoshua had already conceded in his (Rebbi Eliezer)'s lifetime, that Rebbi Eliezer was right, he nevertheless did not want to retract whilst he was still alive, for fear that if he did, people might otherwise follow Rebbi Eliezer in other issues too - and, in deference to Rebbi Eliezer, it would be difficult to stop them.
Now that Rebbi Eliezer was no longer alive, it would no longer be a problem in telling the people that the Halachah was not like Rebbi Eliezer in other matters (should they take their cue from the fact that Rebbi Yehoshua now ruled like him in this matter).

In principle, the Halachah is not like Rebbi Eliezer, because he was a Shamuti (in Cheirem. According to Tosfos, because he was from the school of Beis Shamai).

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua learnt from a Kal va'Chomer from a Tevul Yom, which is not Metamei liquids, yet it is Metamei food, so the backs of vessels, which *are* Metamei liquids, should certainly be Metamei foods. To which Rebbi Eliezer replied that a Tevul-Yom is Metamei food Min ha'Torah, whereas the back of a vessel is Metamei liquid only mi'de'Rabbanan - and we cannot learn a de'Rabbanan from a d'Oraysa.

(b) The reason for Chazal's decree that liquid should be Metamei vessels, is a Gezeirah because of the liquids of a Zav and a Zavah (which are Metamei vessels min ha'Torah).

(c) They restricted their decree to liquids, which are susceptible to Tum'ah, inasmuch as they do not require Hechsher to become Tamei, whereas food does.

(d) Even though Tamei liquid is Metamei the inside of a vessel only mi'de'Rabbanan, Chazal were nevertheless lenient here with regard to a vessel which became Tamei only via its back through a liquid ( i.e.not to be Metamei food), but not via its inside. This is because we have a precedent to be lenient when the vessel becomes Tamei via its back: namely the Mishnah in Keilim, which rules that a vessel which became Tamei through liquid via its back; its inside, its ear (by which it is hung on the wall or in a cupboard), its rim and its handle all remain Tahor; whereas if its inside became Tamei through liquid, the entire vessel is Tamei.

Next daf