Explanation (cont.): However, even though a Tamei Mes is an Av ha'Tumah, he does not have impurity through carrying. A pure ring also does not become impure due to a person, being that the hidden areas of a person do not make something impure.

Explanation (cont.): However, in a case where there is a pure ring and an impure ring, the logic regarding a hidden area is irrelevant (as the impurity comes from an object, not the person's hidden areas). I would therefore think that if the rings are hidden inside of him they should both be considered impure. Rabah therefore teaches us that the reasoning of the Mishnah is because the impurity is absorbed in the body, meaning that the pure ring should not be considered impure.

Question #1: There is a difficulty with Rashi's explanation. A ring that touches a dead person is like a dead person. Its impurity goes through (certain covers) and up even if it is under a pile of rocks, where it would not make a person impure because it is in a hidden area.

Question #2: His explanation that a pure ring will not become impure due to the person because the hidden area of a person does not cause things to become impure is difficult.

Question #2 (cont.): If a person enters a tent where there is a dead person and he has (small) vessel or food in the folds of his skin, will they indeed remain pure?! Even though one does not contract impurity in a hidden area, it is not like a tight cover over an earthenware vessel that saves its contents from contracting impurity in a where there is a dead person.

Proof: This is evident from the fact that while plaster is not something which becomes impure, if one puts food in plaster and brings it into a tent where there is a dead person, it becomes impure.

Question #3: Additionally, his explanation that impurity through carrying is only with items that are the source of the impurity is incorrect, as something a Zav sits or lays upon makes one who carries it impure. Similarly, in our case the ring that touched a dead person is like the dead body, and therefore should make one who carries it impure. This is because the fact that it is in a hidden area should not help prevent this impurity, as Rashi himself explains.

Question #3 (cont.): In Nidah (42b), we also say that a person who has a piece of Neveilah in his folds of skin is impure. Despite the fact that he does not become impure through touching the Neveilah, he does become impure through carrying it.

Opinion: It therefore appears that the reason of the Mishnah is because the impurity is absorbed. Even so, Rabah teaches us with the case of two rings that we would not have known this from the Mishnah.

Opinion (cont.): Even though absorbed impurity does not cause impurity, I would think that means it does not cause items outside of the item (or person) it is absorbed in to become impure. However, it would cause a pure item absorbed together with it to become impure. Similarly, when we say that a pure item that is absorbed does not become impure, this might mean from something impure outside of the item it is absorbed in, not from something that is absorbed together with it.

Implied Question: One should not ask that being that Rabah is teaching us about a case where there are two rings, why does he say "just like etc.?"

Answer: He means that just as absorbed impurity does not cause the person who it is absorbed in to become impure even though it touches him, so too it does not make a pure item that is together with it impure.

Question: How does Rabah know that absorbed impurity does not become impure from the impure item that is with it? This is not derived from the Kal v'Chomer from a tight cover (on an earthenware vessel, see 71a)!

Answer: Rabah derived his teaching from the Pasuk, "one who eats its carcass." Rabah said, aren't we (also) discussing a case of someone who ate close to sunset, and the Torah said he is pure and therefore even able to eat Terumah? This is despite the fact that the Terumah touches the impurity that is in his stomach, and it is forbidden to cause Terumah to become impure! (It must be that this does not cause the Terumah to become impure.)

Question: We already learned the law regarding two rings, as we learned (in Mikvaos 10:8) that if someone swallows an impure ring, he can immerse and eat Terumah! (The Terumah mingling with the ring is the same as a case of two rings!)

Answer: It is possible to answer that in the case in Mikvaos (10:8) he required sprinkling on the third and seventh day after he became impure. When he eats Terumah after the seventh day, the ring is already close to a hole where it would exit (or attempt to exit) his body. When he swallows Terumah, it does not touch the ring until it gets close to the hole as well, at which point it is already digested (and no longer has the status of Terumah).

Explanation: Rashi explains that this implies that absorbed impurity does cause impurity. The reason that the woman remains pure is because the impurity is in her hidden area. Rashi also gives this explanation later regarding the Gemara's statement, "You should not say the Mishnah is according to Rebbi Akiva."

Question: This is difficult. Even though she should not become impure through the contact that the impurity has with her being that it is in her hidden area, she should be impure because she is carrying it!

Answer: Rather, it must be as we have explained that a woman is pure because the impurity is absorbed. The midwife's hand is similar to the case of two rings.

Explanation: Rashi explains that this would give the fetus a status of being born. This implies that it specifically said this regarding its head.

Proof: This is also the implication of the Gemara in Nidah (42b) regarding a woman who gives birth, that she is impure inside like she is outside. The Gemara explains that this is in a case where the child stuck his head out of the birth canal, as is the opinion of Rebbi Oshiya etc. This indicates that Rebbi Oshiya specifically said this regarding the head.

Question: This is difficult. Why is this specifically regarding his head? Even if he only stuck his hand outside the birth canal, the midwife who touched him or carried him would still be impure, as he is no longer considered absorbed!

Answer: The Pasuk, "from on the field" teaches that unless he is considered born he does not cause impurity. It is now understandable why Rebbi Yishmael needs to derive this from the Pasuk despite the fact that the reason seems obvious, as it is absorbed impurity. He derived from the Pasuk that he is not impure if he sticks out his hand, but rather needs to be born to cause impurity.

Answer (cont.): Rebbi Akiva only argues regarding in a case where he stuck out his hand.

Answer (cont.): This is also implied by the Gemara's statement, "you should not say the Mishnah is only according to Rebbi Akiva" as the indication is that the Mishnah can obviously be according to Rebbi Akiva. The midwife is impure according to Rabbinic law, as we decree she is impure when the entire fetus was in the woman due to a case where the hand was sticking out.

Answer (cont.): However, if Rebbi Akiva says that a fetus in the mother is impure even if it did not go out of the mother at all, how can we say that the Mishnah is according to him, and that the midwife is impure while the mother is pure?

Explanation: This is explained in Kesuvos (4b, DH "Ad").

Observation: Rebbi Yishmael holds Yesh Aim l'Mesores, and that therefore the word is looked at as saying Nafshas (singular), as he says in Sanhedrin (4a).

Question: This is difficult, as why do we require two Pesukim, both "b'Mes b'Nefesh" and "Nefesh" (some have the text in Tosfos "Nafshas") regarding a Revi'is of blood (if not for the teaching of Rebbi Akiva)?

Explanation: This is because the fetus inside, even if it is dead, is considered alive, as the slaughtering of its mother permits it to be eaten.

Explanation: They argue regarding whether or not the limb is considered to "fall off" when slaughtering takes place, as stated in the Gemara (73b). Before slaughtering, everyone agrees that if a person touches the limb sticking out he is pure. If the limb causes impurity when it is alive, how could slaughtering help according to the Rabbanan to take away the impurity and make it pure?

Implied Question: Earlier (70b), when the Mishnah stated that if the shepherd stuck his hand in the womb and touched the fetus he is pure, it is not specifically because the fetus is inside the animal. This would even be the case if the shepherd touched the foot of the animal that was sticking out of the animal. (Why, then, didn't the Mishnah state this?)

Answer #1: Rather, this teaches the power of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili's position (70b), that even so if the animal is unkosher, it causes impurity.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Rabbanan admit that if an unkosher animal sticks its hand out and he touches it, he is impure. They only argue regarding the fetus of an unkosher animal while it is inside the animal, as only in that case do we compare an unkosher animal to a kosher animal, not regarding what is outside the animal.

Observation: Originally, when it became impure through Medras, one must say that there were flat vessels of wood between his foot and the clothing.

Observation (cont.): If this were not the case, Rebbi Yosi would not argue, as the Medras and Maga of the Zav happened at the same time if he was barefoot. Alternatively, the Medras and Maga Medras happened if he was wearing shoes. When both happen at the same time, Rebbi Yosi admits (that the secondary impurity still applies after the first form of impurity does not), as implied in Menachos (24b).

Explanation: Either he touched it before Medras, or he stepped on it barefoot, causing Medras and Maga ha'Zav at the same time. If he touched it after the Medras, Maga which is lighter would not take effect on something which is already impure due to Medras, which is more stringent.

Proof: This is as implied in Menachos (24b, see also Tosfos DH "Ki" there). The Beraisa there states that Rebbi Yosi admits that if two sheets were folded one on top of the other and the Zav sat on them that the top one is impure due to Medras while the bottom one is impure both due to Medras and Maga Medras.

Proof (cont.): The case is where there is air between the sheets that are on poles, and the sheets are one on top of the other. The Zav sat on the top one until it sagged and weighed on the bottom sheet. The case is also where flat wooden vessels are in between him and the sheets.

Proof (cont.): Regarding the top sheet, the Medras is before the Maga. Regarding the bottom sheet, the Medras and Maga happen at the same time, as the Zav caused the top sheet to go down until it weighed on the bottom sheet. Accordingly, the bottom sheet is Tamei Medras due to the Zav, and Tamei Maga Medras due to the top sheet. Both of these occur at the same time.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Menachos (ibid.) originally wanted to answer the question regarding an Isaron that was divided in half, with one half becoming impure and being subsequently put in a bowl that is a Kli Shares (together with the other half that had not yet been made impure, and was not in a vessel with the first half when it became impure). A Tevul Yom then came and touched the impure half. The question of the Gemara is whether we say that the second half is already impure, and therefore not considered impure due to the Tevul Yom, or do we say that it is considered to become impure again, and therefore causes the second half to also become impure due to the halves being in the same vessel when the first half became impure from the Tevul Yom.

Implied Question (cont.): The Gemara extrapolates from the Mishnah that if a sheet was Tamei Medras and it was made into a curtain, it is no longer Tamei Medras, but it is still Tamei Maga Medras. Rebbi Yosi says, how did it become Tamei Maga Medras? Rather, it means that if a Zav touched it, it would become impure. This must be referring to him touching it afterwards. (This shows the Gemara does believe Maga Medras would take effect after Medras! Didn't we just say prove is incorrect from the case of the two sheets?)

Answer: It is clear that at this point the Gemara did not yet know the Beraisa regarding the two sheets, as it is clear from that Beraisa that the light impurity of Maga Medras that happens after the stringent impurity of Medras will not take effect.

Question: In Chulin (128b), the Beraisa states that if someone cuts a k'Zayis of meat from a limb of a live animal, if he thought about eating it and then cut it off it is impure (as food). The Gemara asks, isn't the impurity only done in a hidden area? The Gemara answers, this is the opinion of Rebbi Meir (in our Gemara). However, how can the light impurity of food take effect after his wanting it to be food if the limb was already prohibited with a stringent impurity of a limb of a live animal?

Answer #1: The impurity of food is indeed more stringent, as it can combine with less than a k'Beitzah of food to create impurity. However, before he thinks about it as food, it cannot combine with other items (other than a limb from a live animal) to create impurity.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Shimshom says that "it is full from impurity" (i.e. unable to contract a second form of impurity) does not apply regarding something where the impurity comes from its own body (i.e. the limb becomes food, or the sheet made into a curtain). In such a case, even a light impurity will take effect after a stringent impurity has already taken effect.

Proof: Rabeinu Shimshon's opinion is implied in Menachos (24b). The Gemara wants to extrapolate from the case of the two sheets (as explained above in b) that we do not say "it is full from impurity" as the bottom sheet is impure from both Medras and Maga Medras.

Proof (cont.): This means that even though the top sheet is only Tamei Medras, it is only because Maga which is a light impurity does not take effect on Medras which is stringent if they happen one after another. However, the Gemara wants to show from the bottom sheet that being that the two impurities happen at the same time, even a lenient impurity takes effect together with a stringent impurity.

Proof (cont.): Accordingly, in a case where the impurities are equal, as in the case of the Isaron that was split in half, they should take effect even if they happen one after the other! The Gemara answers that if the two impurities happen at the same time they both take effect, even if one was light and one was stringent. However, if one happens after the other, even if they are equal the second one does not take effect.

Proof (cont.): According to the logic of the one who was trying to bring this proof in the Gemara, why didn't he extrapolate this from Rebbi Meir who said regarding a sheet that was made into a curtain that it is impure from Maga Medras? This indicates that a light impurity takes effect at the same time that a stringent impurity takes effect! Rather, it must be that when the impurity comes from the item itself, we do not say that "it is full from impurity," even if a lighter impurity comes afterwards.

Question: One can push aside this proof by saying that the Gemara did not want to prove this from Rebbi Meir, as Rebbi Yosi argues on him due to this reason. This is why it only wanted to extrapolate from Rebbi Yosi.

Explanation: Before they totally split apart, the two pieces touch each other.

Implied Question: Similarly, Rebbi Yosi would admit regarding clothing that was three by three Tefachim and that was stepped upon by a Zav without anything separating the clothing and his bare feet that Medras and Maga Medras occur at the same time.

Implied Question (cont.): Even if there was something separating his feet and the clothing, if the sheets were doubled over when he stepped on it, meaning that the ends of both sheets were openly touching each other, both Medras and Maga Medras take effect. This is because the contact is not in a hidden area, and both occur at the same time. (Why didn't Ula make a distinction regarding this case?)

Answer: Rather, Ula prefers to find a case of Maga even if the clothing is open and stretched out and there were flat vessels of wood separating between the Zav and the clothing, as it is more similar to the first case. (See Tosfos DH "Tahor" above who stated that this must be the case.)

Question: Later in Chulin (128b), regarding a person who cuts off flesh from a live animal thereby becoming impure, the Gemara establishes that this is according to Rebbi Meir who says that impurity in a hidden area does cause impurity.

Question (cont.): It could even be according to Rebbi Yosi, as when the flesh comes off it receives impurity from the limb!

Question (cont.): It is difficult to say that the case is where when he first cut the limb, the limb did not have enough skin to heal (and therefore did not cause impurity).

Answer: The case is when he cut it off with all of his might, as it does not contract impurity when it is being separated from the body (it only does so if separated slowly). A similar answer is given in Kerisus (15b).

Question: However, in Pesachim (85a, see Tosfos there DH "u'li'Ravina") regarding a limb that partially went out must be cut until one gets to the bone, and the flesh should be peeled off until one gets to the joint, at which point the bone should be cut. The Gemara deduces from here that the Rabbanan must not have decreed that a limb that goes out of the Mikdash (or its designated area) is impure, as otherwise it would make the part of the animal that is inside impure.