What is the meaning of 'Megamgem'?

R. Yonah: He was reading imprecisely.

Megadim Chadashim: It means so almost everywhere. Below (Amud B) Rashi says that it is reading quickly. It cannot mean that a Ba'al Keri should read imprecisely!

Why was the Talmid Megamgem?

Rashi: He was a Ba'al Keri.

Anaf Yosef: What does Rashi teach? 'Ba'al Keri' implies that it was a nocturnal emission, and not due to Bi'ah. Engaging in Torah is a remedy for this pitfall. Saying the words with the tongue fixes the Bris of the tongue; this fixes the Bris of the Ever. The tongue can cause ruin of the Ever, and can fix it. This is why R. Yehudah ben Beseira told him 'open your mouth and your words will illuminate.'

Maharsha: He did not want to say the names of Hash-m.

NOTE: Presumably, he held like R. Nasan ben Avishalom (in the Gemara], who forbids saying them. (PF)

Iyun Yakov: The main concern was lest a Ba'al Keri read from a Sefer, and he will be Metamei the Sefer. R. Yosi said that he may learn normally - since it is fluent on his lips, he need not learn from the Sefer. The Talmid read errantly, for he did not want to learn from a Sefer. R. Yehudah told him that there is no reason to refrain.

What is the significance of the comparison of Divrei Torah to fire?

Maharsha: The Torah was written in front of Hash-m in black fire (letters) on white fire (background; Rashi (Devarim 33:2) brought so from Shekalim 16b). All its letters are names of Hash-m.

Ha'Boneh: Torah is an entity unto itself. It is not stuck to physicality. Even if man is Tamei, Divrei Torah are not Mekabel Tum'ah, for they are separate from him.

Anaf Yosef: Divrei Torah eradicate and burn Tum'ah, like fire.

R. Yonah: Only Keri'as Shma is not Mekabel Tum'ah. "Ki Devar Hash-m Bazah... Hikares" (Bamidbar 15:31) refers to one who recites Divrei Torah in putrid alleys (24b). This is more stringent than other Chayavei Kerisus, in which the Kares atones. Here, there is Kares, and still "Avonah Vah."

Anaf Yosef: The Kesef Mishneh refutes this. He says that when filth is seen or smelled, it is disgraceful to speak Torah. A Tamei person, this is not sensed; it is known only intellectually. Also, Divrei Torah are like fire, and do not receive Tum'ah.

How could R. Yehudah ben Beseira override Ezra's enactment?

Tosfos (Bava Kama 82b): He holds that Ezra never enacted it. Or, Ezra stipulated that later Chachamim can cancel it, like it says in Mo'ed Katan (3b). Or, the Isur did not spread in the majority of Yisrael.

Does this teach that Takanas Ezra was totally canceled?

Me'iri: First they were lenient to say that pouring nine Kabim helps in place of Tevilah. Afterwards, they said that even this is not needed. The Rif (Alfasi) holds that nine Kabim still applies to Tefilah; this is unreasonable. Even though Divrei Torah are not Mekabel Tum'ah, Takanas Ezra brings great Kedushah; one who is stringent will be blessed.

In what case was his Tefilah To'evah?

Tosfos: Ri says that it is To'evah only if he prayed in a place where he should have been concerned for excrement.

Me'iri: E.g. on the road is assumed to have excrement. If not, he was not negligent, and it is not To'evah. I say that whenever it was found in his place, he was negligent.

What is the consequence of 'his Tefilah is To'evah'?

Tosfos: This is "Me'uvas Lo Yuchal Liskon" (Koheles 1:15; it cannot be fixed). Ri says that he prays again.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Tosfos' first opinion holds that even though he prays again, it is To'evah. His sin remains, for he should have checked the place. Ri says that praying again fixes his sin. The Gemara said 'what is his Tikun? He prays again. Above, we said that if one was praying and saw excrement, he distances [and finishes praying]. Tosfos holds that the initial Berachos were To'evah, for they were invalid; he should have checked the place. Ri holds that also the Berachos that he repeats in the clean place are To'evah, for they are due to his invalid Berachos. The Rosh bring texts that do not say 'what is his Tikun?...' If so, Tosfos is understood simply.

Me'iri: It is only if he found the excrement where he prayed, but not if it was nearby, even within four Amos.

Rav Elyashiv: The Rashba explains, when excrement was in front of him, and [afterwards] he saw it, he transgressed "v'Lo Yir'eh Vecha Ervas Davar" (Devarim 25:13). His Tefilah was valid, for he was not negligent. Rava said 'since he transgressed, his Tefilah was To'evah.' Here he did not see it, and Chachamim did not obligate him to check as far as he can see. When excrement was in his place, he transgressed "v'Hayah Machanecha Kadosh" (ibid.) Only if there was reason to suspect that there is excrement, he was negligent and his Tefilah is To'evah. Most Rishonim hold like this. The Ritva says that he was not obligated to check. He transgressed b'Shogeg. Even so, he must pray again, for Tefilah is like a Korban. A Korban is invalid even if one was unaware of the Pesul. "Zevach Resha'im To'evah" is not precise.