Clarification: He (Rebbi Tarfon) is saying this according to the words of the Chachamim, since he does not hold 'Dayo' there where it negates the Kal va'Chomer.

Question: (One can ask that) whereas the damage of Shen va'Regel is common, that of Keren is less common ...

Source: ... at least according to the opinion that holds 'Palga Nizka K'nasa' (above, Daf 15a), since the ox`has a Chazakah of being guarded?

Refuted Answer: And one cannot answer that we learn (the Kal va'Chomer) from R'shus to R'shus - 'If in the R'shus ha'Rabim, where the Torah is lenient regarding Shen va'Regel, it is strict regarding Keren, how much more so in the R'shus ha'Nizak!'

Refutation: ... since one can still ask the same question ...

Source: ... as is implied later (Daf 26a) where the Gemara, which is attempting to learn that a Tam pays full Kofer in the Chatzer of the Nizak from Ninkei Regel ...

Source (cont.): ... asks 'Whereas Nizkei Regel are applicable to fire?'

Answer: The question is not valid, seeing as the Chumra in question does not render one Chayav in the R'shus ha'Rabim ...

Answer (cont.): So the Kal va'Chomer runs like this - 'If Shen va'Regel, whose Chumros, which are not able to render one Chayav Nezek Shalem in the R'shus ha'Rabim, are able to render one Chayav in the R'shus ha'Nizak ... !'

Implied Question: In the first Perek of Zevachim (Daf 10a) in the case of 'Someone who Shechts li'Sh'mah having in mind to sprinkle the blood she'Lo li'Sh'mah', which is Pasul from a Kal va'Chomer from someone who Shechts in the wrong time, which is Kasher ...

Implied Question (cont.): ... the Gemara asks 'Whereas Chutz li'Zemano is Chayav Kareis?' even though that Chumra does not render Pasul a Korban that is Shechted Chutz li'Zemano?

Answer: A Chumra which the Torah specifically mentions is different, in that, since the Torah is strict in this point, perhaps it is also strict in another point.

Question: How can the Rabbanan say 'Dayo'? Isn't every Kal va'Chomer like that - On account of another small Chumra that a. has that b. does not, one must apply all the Chumros of a. to b. ?

Answer: Since the Chumra in question is similar to the Din that we are trying to learn, it is justifiable to say 'Dayo'.

Question: In Perek Echad Dinei Mamonos (Sanhedrin, Daf 35b), the Gemara asks 'Let the burial of a Meis Mitzvah override Shabbos from a Kal va'Chomer - If Avodah, which overrides Shabbos, is overridden by Meis Mitzvah, then Shabbos, which is overridden by Avodah, should certainly be overridden by the burial of a Meis Mitzvah? ...

Question (cont.): why do we not say that just as Meis Mitzvah only overrides the Avodah via 'Shev ve'Al Ta'aseh' (negatively), so too, Shabbos ('Dayo')?

Answer: Since the actual Avodah is negated before the burial of a Meis Mitzvah, we cannot say that it (the Avodah) is stricter that it in any aspect.

Reason #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that it is because of the Gemara in 'ha'Mapeles' (Nidah, Daf 31a) which states that whereas a father and mother each give the baby five things, Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu gives ten (See Mesores ha'Shas).

Reason #2: Others attribute the fourteen days to the two sets of quarantine, seeing as there is no quarantine that lasts less than seven days.

Source: And this is evident in the Tosefta of Maseches Avos.

Conclusion: All of the proofs are ultimately rejected.

Question: In Perek ha'Sho'el (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 98a) the Gemara asks 'That is fine according to those that holds 'Dayo', but what about those that do not? Even though in the case there, the Kal va'Chomer is not negated?

Answer: The Gemara is asking according to what those Amora'im originally thought.

Question: Why do we not apply the Kal va'Chomer with regard to touching or carrying the Tum'ah itself, and 'Dayo' to say that it is not Metamei Adam to be Metamei Begadim ...

Question (cont.): ... whereas at the beginning of Maseches Keilim and at the end of Maseches Zavim it implies that it is Metamei Adam to be Metamei Begadim?

Refuted Answer: And if you want to say that we do not say 'Dayo' to draw a distinction in Tum'ah, seeing as we do not find anything that is Metami be'Masa which is not Metamei Adam to be Metamei Begadim ...

Refutation: But above (on Daf 18b) we said according to Rebbi Tarfon - that from the Kal va'Chomer we learn that one is Chcyav to pay Nezek Shalem, and from 'Dayo' that he pays mi'Gufo - even though we do not find a case where Nezek Shalem pays mi'Gufo?

Precedent: And similarly later (on Amud Beis) with regard to a mat, the Gemara states that from the Kal va'Chomer we learn 'Tum'as Erev and from 'Dayo', that he is not Tamei for seven days - even though we do not find anything which touches a Meis that is not Tamei for seven days?

Answer: Perhaps we can differentiate and say that Nezek Shalem and mi'Gufo are two different things, and it is not therefore considered half a D'rashah ...

Answer (cont.): Likewise there are things that touch a Meis that are not Tamei for seven days and that do not become an Av ha'Tum'ah - such as food and drink and earthenware vessels ...

Answer (concl.): ... whereas in our case, since it is subject to Tum'as Masa, one cannot make half a D'rashah.

Precedent: And similarly in the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 18b and 19a) we learn liquids that come from a Sheretz from liquids that come from a K'li ...

Precedent (cont.): ... and we do not say 'Dayo' - that they should be a Sheini like the latter, since we do not find anything that touches a Sheretz that is not a Rishon.

Question: Let us learn from the Kal va'Chomer that it is Metamei via touching to be Metamei his clothes, like his spit, and from 'Dayo' to preclude it from Masa?

Answer: This too, is considered half a D'rashah, seeing as we do not find anything that renders Tamei via touching Adam le'Tamei Begadav which is not Metamei be'Masa.

Answer (cont.): If anything, we find the opposite at the beginning of Maseches Keilim, with regard to Merkav, which is Metamei Adam but not his clothes be'Maga, but be'Masa, it is Metamei his clothes, too.

Question: Why do we not Darshen the Kal va'Chomer to be Metamei be'Masa, and 'Dayo' to preclude Maga from being Metamei one's clothes, that his Din should resemble that of Merkav?

Answer: That too, is out of the question - that Masa, which is not mentioned at all, we should learn from a Kal va'Chomer, and Maga, which is, we should not learn with regard to the entire Din of touching spit from the Kal va'Chomer.

Refuted Answer: It is not feasible to cite here the Tana'im that are cited in the last Perek of Nazir (Daf 66a) and the Tana of the Mishnah there, who hold that the Shichvas-Zera of a Zav renders Tamei by carrying ...

Refutation: ... since there they all hold that the Shichvas-Zera is Metamei specifically within twenty-four hours of the sighting of the Zivus or on the same day ...

Refutation cont.): ... whereas here the Tana is coming to include that it renders Tamei by carrying all seven days, via a Kal va'Chomer from his spit.

Question: In Perek B'nos Kutim (Nidah, Daf 34b) Rav Yosef asks whether the first sighting of a Metzora renders Tamei via carrying ...

Question (cont.): Why does the Gemara not conclude that it is from his spit, which is Tahor by a Tahor person, like the Keri of the Zav in our case?

Answer: The She'eilah there does not go according to Rebbi Tarfon, but according to the Rabbanan, who say 'Dayo' whenever the Kal va'Chomer is negated.

Observation: What the Gemara says in various places (Nidah, Daf 49a, and Succah, Daf 20a) that whatever is Metamei Medras is Metamei Tamei Meis, is based on this Sugya.

Clarification: Since one is unable to touch inside them because their opening is narrow.

Clarification (cont.): Neither are they subject to Tum'ah via 'Heset' (moving), because, as Rashi explains, whatever is subject to Tum'ah via touching is subject to Tum'ah via Heset, whereas whatever is not ... '.

Implied Question: And even though it is accessible via the Zav's hair, it does not become Tamei ...

Answer: ... since it must be touchable by his flesh, as Rashi explains (in Maseches Shabbos) ...

Reason: ... because the Tum'ah of the hair of a Zav is learned from his flesh.

Question #1: In the first Perek of Nidah (Daf 8b) the Gemara states that an earthenware vessel with a sealed lid that is saved from Tum'ah in the Ohel of a Meis is not saved from the Tum'ah of 'Me'es Le'es (twenty-four hours retroactively) of a Nidah ...

Question #2: And also at the end of 'ha'Nizakin' (Gitin, Daf 62:) the Gemara asks why we are not concerned that his wife might move them whilst she is a Nidah ...

Conclusion: So we see that Tum'as Heset applies even where touching does not?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that a sealed lid is considered touchable, since it stands to be opened.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara says in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev' (Chulin, Daf 126b) that the thigh-bone of a Neveilah that lacks a hole lacks the act of boring one, even though one had in mind to bore one, and is therefore not Metamei be'Masa ...

Answer: That is because there the bone stands to be holed only via his Machshavah (potentially), whereas the earthenware vessel automatically stands to be opened.

Question #1: Small earthenware jars are subject to Tum'ah via their air, since one can suspend the hair of a Meis into their opening, whereas ... ?

Question #2: Moreover, the Gemara will shortly learn a Kal va'Chomer from small earthenware jars which can become Tamei via a Sheretz, in which case even the size of a lentil is able to enter via its opening?

Answer: Wooden vessels, which do not receive Tum'ah via their opening yet they do receive Tum'ah via a Meis will prove ...

Answer (cont.): Note: It is unclear what Tosfos is trying to say. It appears to me that he is continuing the Limud of Mapatz from Pachin Ketanim and wooden vessels - 'And if you will ask that one cannot learn it from wooden vessels, which can become an Av ha'Tum'ah, whereas a mat cannot, then we can learn it from Pachin Ketanim, which cannot become an Av ha'Tum'ah either'.

Question: Why can we not learn it from Pachin Gedolim which are not subject to Tum'as Medras either, as the Gemara learns in Perek Rebbi Akiva (Shabbos, Daf 84b & 85a), that although earthenware vessels are not Tamei Medras, they are Tamei Meis?

Answer: Perhaps the Tana prefers to learn it from Pachin Ketanim which are Tahor from all forms of Tum'as Zav.

Question: From where do we know that it does not receive Tum'ah via the fountains of a Zav?

Question (cont.): Granted, it does receive Tum'ah via his hair, because, since we learn the Tum'ah of the hair from his Basar, it needs to be accessible to the Basar ...

Question (concl.): ... but as far as the Zav's spit - by which the Torah writes explicitly "And if the Zav spits at a Tahor person" - is concerned, it is obvious that it does not need to be accessible to his Basar?

Question: Earthenware vessels that are covered with a sealed lid, which are Metamei via the Heset of a Zav, as Tosfos explained earlier (DH 'u'Mah') but are Tahor by a Meis, will prove otherwise?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that one cannot make a 'Yochi'ach' from the sealed lid of an earthenware vessel ...

Reason: ... which is Metamei by a Zav in the same way as it is Metamei by a Meis, because the reason that it is Metamei be'Heset is because it is as if the Zav touched inside ...

Reason (cont.): ... like it states in Toras Kohanim, Parshas Metzora) 'What is touching that is considered contact with the entire article?' The answer is 'Heset'.

Reason (concl.): And by a Meis too, if a k'Zayis of a Meis was inside the vessel,, it would become Tamei.

Question: How does Tum'as Shiv'ah apply, seeing as it is not subject to Taharah in a Mikvah ...

Source: ... as the Gemara states in Perek Rebbi Akiva (Shabbos, Daf 84b)?

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that it means the Din of Tum'as Shiv'ah, with reference to the fact that it becomes an Av ha'Tum'ah, like something that is Tamei for seven days ...

Refutation: Because, since it is not subject to Taharah in a Mikvah, it does not become an Av ha'Tum'ah either ...

Source: ... as is evident from the Gemara at the end of Eruvin (Daf 104b).

Answer #1: Because the same Kal va'Chomer applies also to flat wooden vessels that are designated for Medras, which are also subject to Tum'as Meis, and which we now learn are subject to Tum'as Shiv'ah.

Answer #2: The Beraisa is speaking about all mats, whether they are made of wood, which are then subject to Taharah in a Mikvah, or of various kinds of reeds (which are not).

Conclusion: Consequently, in Maseches Shabbos (Daf 84a) the Gemara asks from a reed mat, whereas here it asks from one made of wood (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim)..

Question: Why do we need a Gezeirah-Shavah, seeing as it is compared to Shichvas-Zera and Shichvas-Zera to a Sheretz ...

Reason: ... bearing in mind that throughout the Torah, one learns one Lameid from another, with the exception of Kodshim?

Answer: It is clear that we do not learn one from the other in all regards, neither from the Hekesh nor from the Gezeirah-Shavah ...

Support: ... as we find at the beginning of the second Perek of Chulin (Daf 36a) in connection with Hechsher, where it says 'One for Tum'as Meis and one for Tum'as Sheretz, and both are necessary' ...

Answer (cont.): And from the fact that the Gemara requires a Gezeirah Shavah we learn that we do not learn everything from each other, only what is mentioned in our Sugya ...

Answer (cont.): And at the end of Perek Bameh Ishah (Shabbos, Daf 64a) 'to include something that comes from the tail of a horse and of a cow, which is equally applicable to both of them ...

Answer (concl.): And similarly the handles of vessels and of food, which the Gemara learns in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev (Chulin, Daf 118a), and which does not require two Pesukim, one for Meis and one for Sheretz

Question: Why do we not learn it from a Kal va'Chomer like we did originally?

Answer: Because the Pasuk implies that it refers to what is written explicitly.

Conclusion: And now that we learn Meis from a Gezeirah-Shavah, even though we learn Sheretz itself from a Kal va'Chomer, it considers it as if it was written explicitly.