1)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in ...

1. ... Re'ei "Zos ha'Beheimah asher Tocheilu; Shor, Seh Kevasim ... Ayal u'Tzvi ve'Yachmur that - "Beheimah" incorporates Chayah.

2. ... Shemini "Zos ha'Chayah asher Tocheilu mi'Kol ha'Beheimah asher al ha'Aretz; Kol Mafreses Parsah" that - "Chayah" incorporates Beheimah.

(b)The Beraisa learns Chayah Teme'ah from Beheimah Teme'ah with regard to the Isur of interbreeding and Chayah Tehorah from Beheimah Tehorah with regard to the Simnei Shechitah - though this Hekesh also incorporates the Isur of interbreeding and Tum'as Neveilos.

(c)The Tana does not insert them - because he only mention one area of Halachah by each of the four cases.

2)

(a)The problem with the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Korban Olah ve'Yored for someone who touches Tum'ah) "O be'Nivlas Chayah Teme'ah O be'Nivlas Beheimah Teme'ah" is that - based on the K'lal 'Beheimah bi'Chelal Chayah', why the Torah needs to insert the last four words.

(b)Rebbi - uses the extra words for a Gezeirah-Shavah ("Beheimah Teme'ah" from "Beheimah Teme'ah").

(c)He learns via the Gezeirah-Shavah from the Pasuk in Tzav "ve'Nefesh ki Siga be'Chol Tamei ... O bi'Veheimah Teme'ah" that - a Tamei person is only Chayav a Korban Olah ve'Yored if he subsequently eats Kodesh (or enters the Beis-Hamikdash).

(d)And finally, Rebbi Yishmael learns Beheimah Tehorah from Chayah Tehorah regarding Yetzirah with reference to the Pasuk in Bereishis "Vayitzer Hash-m Elokim min ha'Adamah Kol Chayas ha'Sadeh" - regarding a woman who gives birth to the form of a Tahor animal, Chayah or bird (as we will now explain).

(e)The same will apply to a woman who gives birth to the form of a Beheimah Teme'ah, which we learn from the Hekesh of Beheimah Temei'ach from Chayah Teme'ah (only the Tana confines himself to one area of Halachah for each of the four cases, as we explained).

3)

(a)In the Mishnah in Nidah, Rebbi Meir, based on the previous D'rashah, rules that a woman who gives birth to a form of a Tamei or Tahor Beheimah, Chayah or Of, must sit for a male or for a female, depending on what the form is. This entails - seven days of Tum'ah and thirty-three of Taharah in the case of the former, and fourteen days of Tum'ah and sixty-six of Taharah in the case of the latter.

(b)If she doesn't know the gender of the fetus - she must sit fourteen days of Tum'ah and twenty-six (what is left of the forty days of Tum'ah and Taharah that a woman sits for a boy), of Taharah.

(c)According to the Chachamim - only a baby in the shape of a human-being gives the mother the Din of Tum'as Leidah.

4)

(a)The Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili (in our Mishnah) will learn the Pasuk "O be'Nivlas Beheimah Teme'ah" (from which Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak learns 'Zeh Ubar she'bi'Teme'ah') - exclusively like Rebbi ...

(b)... Chayah Teme'ah for itself and Beheimah Teme'ah for the Gezeirah Shavah.

(c)It doesn't matter that in the words "Chayah Teme'ah" there, the word "Teme'ah" too is superfluous - because the Torah is prepared to repeat a Parshah for one Chidush, even though there is nothing to be learned from the rest of the Parshah (as we explained on the previous Amud according to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak).

5)

(a)Our Mishnah declares Tamei for seven days a midwife who touches a dead fetus inside its mother's womb. The mother herself however - remains Tahor.

(b)Rabah maintains - that Taharah Belu'ah (an absorbed Tum'ah, like the baby in our Mishnah [where someone swallowed a metal ring]), is not subject to Tum'ah, just as Tum'ah Belu'ah is not Metamei.

(c)We try to learn Tum'ah Belu'ah from the Pasuk in Shemini "ve'ha'Ochel mi'Nivlasah Yechabes Begadav" - which renders the person Tahor with nightfall, even if he ate the Neveilah only just a little earlier, in which case it is still in his stomach.

(d)We refute this proof however, by suggesting that the Neveilah in his stomach is Tahor because it is not fit for a Ger to eat (the criterion for being called a food).

6)

(a)The refutation only applies however, according to bar Pada, but not according to Rebbi Yochanan, who says that - Neveilah that is fit for a Ger at the time the animal dies - does not lose its status until it is no longer fit for a dog to eat.

(b)bar Pada rules that even in such a case - it is no longer Metamei a person (in its capacity of Tum'as Neveilos), even though he concedes to Rebbi Yochanan that it is still Metamei food (in its capacity as Tum'as Ochlin) as long as a dog will eat it.

(c)We answer that - in a case where someone swallowed whole a small piece of Neveilah, it will still be considered fit for a Ger who is not aware that someone swallowed it.

7)

(a)And we learn that Taharah Belu'ah is not subject to Tum'ah from a Kal va'Chomer from an earthenware vessel with a sealed lid - which does not prevent Tum'ah inside it from being Metamei, due to the principle Tum'ah Retzutzah Boka'as ve'Olah (Tum'ah which fills a confined space, and does not have a Tefach space above it, extends upwards as far as the sky.

(b)We now learn Taharah Belu'ah from there - with a Kal va'Chomer, from the fact that the same earthenware vessel nevertheless saves any Taharos inside it from becoming Tamei. Consequently, a person, who prevents Tum'ah Belu'ah from being Metamei, should certainly prevent Taharah Belu'ah from becoming Tamei.

(c)We query this Kal va'Chomer however - from the fact that Adam has a Chumra over K'lei Cheres, in that he can receive Tum'ah from the outside, which they cannot (in which case we cannot learn a Kula from them.

(d)We refute the Pircha however - on the grounds that, since we are learning a Din that pertains to the inside (and not the outside), the fact remains that K'lei Cheres are more Chamur than Adam, and the Kal-va'Chomer is valid.

8)

(a)The Pasuk regarding Tum'as Neveilah refers to eating it. We learn that Tum'ah Belu'ah below (that is pushed into the body via the rectum using a tube) is not Metamei either from a Kal-va'Chomer - from above, where the food does not digest (how much more so below, where it does).

(b)And we counter the Pircha that the food in the stomach (below) only digests what came in through the mouth (above) - by arguing that, when all's said and done, the food digests below and not above.

(c)We learn the leniency of Tum'ah Belu'ah by an animal from a Kal-va'Chomer from Adam - who is subject to Tum'ah even whilst he is alive, whereas an animal is not.

(d)We query this from the Din of Kibus Begadim by Tum'as Bayis ha'Menuga, which means that - whereas the clothes that the person who enters it only require washing (Toveling in a Mikvah) after he has remained there for a while (as we will see shortly), those worn by an animal who enters there, require washing immediately.

9)

(a)We learn from the fact that the Torah writes Kibus Begadim only with regard to someone who eats in a Bayis ha'Menuga (and not with regard to someone who only enters it) that - his clothes only require Tevilah after he has waited the time it takes to eat ... , but not if he leaves before that.

(b)The Pircha that this creates on the Kal-va'Chomer of Beheimah from Adam is that - since Beheimah has a Chumra (regarding Kibus Begadim), we cannot learn a Kula by Beheimah from Adam.

(c)And we answer with a Mishnah in Mikva'os, which rules that - if someone enters a Bayis ha'Menuga with his clothes folded on his shoulder and holding his shoes and rings in his hand they are Tamei immediately, whereas if he enters it wearing them, they are Tamei only after he has waited ('K'dei Achilas P'ras', as we will now see).

10)

(a)The Tana gives the period of time that one must remain in the house before they become Tamei as - the time it takes to eat a P'ras (four egg-volumes) of wheat bread ...

(b)... reclining (in a comfortable position) and together with condiments (all of which curtail the time it take to eat it).

(c)This Mishnah proves that - in fact, bearing in mind that animals do not generally wear clothes, whatever they do wear, is ornamental, and is therefore no different than the clothes that a person carries on his shoulder ...

(d)... thereby reinstating the Kal va'Chomer Beheimah from Adam.

11)

(a)Rava queries Rabah from a Mishnah in Mikva'os, which rules that someone who ...

1. ... swallows a Tamei ring - may eat Terumah after Toveling and being sprinkled with the Mei Parah on the third and seventh days.

2. ... after Toveling and being sprinkled with the Mei Parah on the third and seventh days, vomits it out - the ring which remained Tamei, is promptly Metamei him as it emerges from his throat.

(b)The Mishnah there also rules that someone who enters an Ohel ha'Meis after swallowing a Tahor ring, and then, after Toveling and being sprinkled on the third and seventh days, he vomits out the ring, he remains Tahor - because the ring did not become Tamei together with him.

(c)This poses a Kashya on Rabah - since the Reisha of the Mishnah teaches us the Din of Tum'ah Belu'ah, and the Seifa, that of Taharah Belu'ah, so what is he coming to teach us that we do not already know?

12)

(a)And we answer that Rabah is speaking where he swallowed two rings, one Tamei and one Tahor, and he is coming to teach us that - the reason in the Mishnah in Mikva'os is because of Tum'ah Belu'ah, and not on account of Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim ...

(b)... because if it was, the Tamei ring would be Metamei the Tahor one, seeing as they are both together in the same area (like two rings in a box), and it is only because Tum'ah Belu'ah is not Metamei, that the Tahor ring remains Tahor.

(c)Even though the rings are made of metal, and based on the D'rashah 'Cherev, Harei hu ke'Chalal', have the status of an Av ha'Tum'ah, the Tamei ring is not Metamei the person be'Masa when he walks with it - because Tum'as Masa only applies to an Av ha'Tum'ah, but not to a Toldah (even if it received its Tum'ah from an Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah).

13)

(a)We query this explanation however, from the case of a midwife, in our Mishnah - which is like two rings, seeing as both the Ubar and the midwife's hand are together in the same area, yet the Ubar renders the midwife Tamei.

(b)Rava refutes Rabah's own answer (that an Ubar is different, since it stands to come out) - on the grounds that the rings too, stand to come out.

14)

(a)Rava himself ultimately answers his final Kashya by citing the Pumbedesa'i - (alias Rav Yosef) ... in the name of Shmuel ...

(b)... who defined the Tum'ah in our Mishnah as - being Tum'ah de'Rabbanan.

(c)When we explain that Shmuel is coming to preclude the notion that the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Akiva, we are referring to Rebbi Akiva's statement that - 'Ubar be'Me'ei Ishah, Tamei'.

15)

(a)According to Shmuel then, the author of our Mishnah could even be Rebbi Yishmael, who holds - that the Rabbanan decreed Tum'ah in this case ...

(b)The reason for this, Rav Hoshaya explains, is in case the Ubar sticks his head out of the P'rozdor (in which case it will be Metamei whoever touches it min ha'Torah), without the midwife realizing it.

(c)They did not extend the decree to the mother herself - because she is aware when that happens, and knows that she is Tamei.

(d)We cannot however, rely on the mother telling the midwife - because a woman in labor has other things to think about.