(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, what did the Kutim Darshen from the Pasuk in Shoftim (in connection with the burial sites of one's fathers) "Lo Sasig G'vul Re'echa asher Gavlu ha'Rishonim"?

(b) What problem do we have with believing the Kutim that someone was or was not buried in a specific burial site?

(c) We answer that the Tana is speaking where a Kohen Kuti is standing there. So what if he is? How do we know that ...

1. ... he is not Tamei?

2. ... that the Terumah that he is holding is not Tamei either?

(d) Then why is this ruling not obvious? What might we otherwise have thought?

(a) The Tana also believes a Kuti regarding his testimony whether an animal gave birth before or not, and we ask the same Kashya that we just asked with regard to the burial of Nefalim. What does Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan reply? How do we know that the Kuti is telling the truth?

(b) Again we ask what the Mishnah is then coming to teach us, and we answer that we might otherwise have thought that they are not experts in Tinuf. What does that mean?

(c) What problem do we have with the Tana believing Kutim with regard to Tziyun Kevarim?

(d) What do we answer? What makes Tziyun Kevarim different?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that a Kuti is not believed on S'chachos, Pera'os and Beis ha'P'ras. How does the Mishnah in Ohalos define ...

1. ... S'chachos? Why would people bury a dead person there?

2. ... Pera'os? What does the Kuti's testimony comprise, in both cases?

(b) On what basis does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav permit blowing one's way through a Beis ha'P'ras?

(c) And what does Rav Yehudah bar Ami citing Rav Yehudah say about a Beis ha'P'ras that has been ground (by many people walking across it)?

(a) The Beraisa defines a Beis ha'P'ras. What is the literal meaning of 'P'ras'?

(b) He gives the Shi'ur as a 'M'lo Ma'anah' (a furrow-full), which is a hundred Amos by a hundred Amos. How many Sa'ah can one plant in that area?

(c) Rebbi Yossi disagrees. What Shi'ur does Rebbi Yossi give for a Beis ha'P'ras in terms of Sa'in?

(a) We query the Mishnah, which rules that a Kuti is not believed with regard to S'chachos and Beis ha'P'ras. What does the Beraisa say about a Kuti who testifies that there are no graves in a certain field or that the branches of a certain tree do not overhang a grave?

(b) What reason does the Tana give for that?

(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan answer? Under which circumstances is the Kuti believed there?

(d) Once again, we ask what the Tana is then coming to teach us. What do we answer? What is different about the field (or the tree [see Tosfos ha'Rosh]).

(a) Our Mishnah concluded with 'Zeh ha'Kelal, Davar she'Chashudin bo, Ein Ne'emanim alav'. Besides Techumin, what does this come to include?

(b) Which Techumin is the Tana referring to?

(c) Why are the Kutim not believed in these two areas of Halachah?

Perek ha'Ro'eh Kesem

(a) Under what circumstances does our Mishnah declare Tamei a Kesem that a woman finds on her body?

(b) What does the Tana say about a woman who finds a Kesem on her ...

1. ... heel?

2. ... big toe?

3. ... her calf or on the inner or outer part of her foot? Why is that?

4. ... the front or the back of her calf?

(c) Which sole distinction does the Tana make regarding a Kesem that she finds on her undershirt?

(d) On what condition does he declare Tamei a Kesem on the sleeve of her undershirt?

(e) What does the Tana finally say about an undershirt or a Puli'us (some sort of head-scarf [see commentaries on Mishnah]) that the woman sometimes removes and uses to cover herself?

(a) What does Shmuel say about a woman who examines the ground before sitting down on it, and who then discovers a bloodstain there?

(b) How does he learn it from the Pasuk in Metzora "Dam Yih'yeh Zovah bi'Vesarah"?

(c) How do we reconcile this with the D'rashah from the same word ...

1. ... which renders a Nidah Tamei even if the blood is still inside her body (as we learned in 'ha'Mapeles')?

2. ... "bi'Vesarah", 've'Lo bi'Shefir ve'Lo be'Shilya' (which requires the blood to come from her body, and not from that of her Sh'fir or Shilya)?

(a) We query Shmuel from a Beraisa which discusses a woman who sees blood whilst urinating. What distinction does Rebbi Meir draw between whether she is standing or sitting?

(b) What makes us assume that in the Seifa, the blood that she sees came from a wound?

(c) Then why is she Tamei in the Reisha?

(d) Why does this pose a Kashya on Shmuel? On what grounds do we assume that she did not feel the blood move?

(a) How does Shmuel therefore establish the Beraisa? If she felt the blood move, why is she Tahor in the Seifa?

(b) In another Beraisa, what distinction does the Tana draw between an Eid (cloth) which has on it an elongated Kesem and one with a round one? Why the difference?

(c) What do we try to prove from there?

(d) How will Shmuel therefore establish the Beraisa? If she felt the blood move, why is she Tahor in the case of a round Kesem?

(a) We ask the same Kashya on Shmuel from the Mishnah the second Perek, which declares a woman Tamei and Chayav a Korban, should her husband discover blood on his Eid or she on hers provided she does so immediately. If, as Shmuel is forced to explain, the Tana is speaking where she felt the blood move, why is she Tahor, should she only discover the blood on her Eid later?

(b) And we query him again from yet another Beraisa. What does the Tana rule in a case of Safek Tamei, Safek Tahor ...

1. ... on her body?

2. ... on her undershirt?

3. ... Safek Maga'os ve'Hesetos? What is the case?

(c) How do we initially explain 'Halach Achar ha'Rov'? Why is this a Kashya on Shmuel?

(d) How do we establish the case to reconcile it with Shmuel?

(a) Bearing in mind the distinction the Tana draws between above the belt and below it, what problem do we have with the previous Beraisa 'Mah Nafshach'?

(b) And we answer that either way is possible. How do we reconcile establishing the Beraisa ...

1. ... below the belt, with the ruling 'Safek ... al Chalukah, Tahor'?

2. ... above the belt, with the ruling 'Safek ... al Besarah, Tamei?

(c) According to the first explanation, why does the Tana then conclude 'al Besarah, Tamei'?

(d) According to the second explanation, why does he conclude 'al Chalukah Tehorah'?

(a) What do we finally prove from the current Beraisa "al Besarah Safek Tahor, Safek Tamei"?

(b) What second proof do we bring for this from our Mishnah?

(c) Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti answers that this speaks mi'de'Rabbanan (and that Shmuel too agrees with that). On what grounds did the Rabbanan issue such a decree?

(d) According to Rav Ashi, Shmuel ('Badkah Karka ... Tehorah') is even speaking mi'de'Rabbanan too, and his reason is not because she did not feel blood. Then what is it?

(a) What problem do we now have with Rav Yirmiyah mi'Difti's answer?

(b) How do we solve it? Why did Shmuel refer specifically to Karka?