Explanation #1: They do not recognize each other more than a Parsah away, even without a river in between.

Explanation #2: When there is a river, what is called recognizing [each other]? It is up to a Parsah;

If it is further, this is called not recognizing, but only when a river is in between.

Question: I am unsure whether R. Shimon ben Elazar is a third Tana, or if he explains the first Tana;

Alternatively, perhaps R. Yehudah agrees about a grain field near an orchard, and Chachamim discuss a field near a Beis ha'Shelachin, but not a field near an orchard!

Tosfos' preferred text: It seems that the text says "in which grain field do Chachamim permit"?

Alternative text: Some texts say "when they said [that one may hunt it] in a grain field abnormally, this is only in a grain field near a city. (This is our text.) He refers to R. Yehudah's words.

Ruling: Tosfos of R. Peretz rules like this. One may build the wall of a Chatzer [normally].

Explanation: This is only when it is close to Reshus ha'Rabim, and there is concern for thieves. Between one Chatzer and another, [where the concern is only] due to people of the other Chatzer, one may not build it normally.

Rashi's opinion: A Metzora Musgar is forbidden to have relations.

Question: What is the source of this? A Mishnah (Megilah 8b) says that the only difference between a Musgar and Muchlat is Pri'ah and Frimah (letting his hair grow and tearing his clothing);

Inference: They are the same regarding relations. The one who permits a Muchlat, all the more so a Musgar is permitted. The one who forbids a Muchlat, also a Musgar is forbidden.

Note: R. Yosef of Vilna suggests that the Mishnah teaches only leniencies of a Musgar over a Muchlat. Pesachim 55a says like this.

Rhetorical question: Why is a Muchlat forbidden (according to the latter opinion)? We learn from a Kal va'Chomer [from Yemei Sifro] to Yemei Chaluto below (7b);

Similarly, we learn a Kal va'Chomer to Yemei Hesgero, from Yemei Sifro!

Implied question: A Musgar does not require Pri'ah and Frimah! (We are thinking that these apply during Yemei Sifro. This refutes the Kal va'Chomer.)

Answer: Also in Yemei Sifro, he does not require Pri'ah and Frimah!

Implied question: In Megilah, we inferred that a Musgar and Muchlat are the same regarding which camps they are expelled from. Why didn't we say that they are the same also regarding relations?

Answer: This is because we are unsure whether both are forbidden, or both are permitted.

Rashi's opinion: Rashi (here, 7b DH Mar) said that a Musgar is not expelled from [all] three Machanos.

Retraction: He retracted from this, for in Megilah we say that they are the same regarding which camps they are expelled from.

Question: Based on this (they are the same regarding relations and Machanos), what is the relevance of preferring company of his wife or of others regarding a Musgar and Muchlat?

Partial answer: Regarding company of others, we could say that a Muchlat require Pri'ah and Frimah, and he calls out "Tamei, Tamei", and separates from people during Yemei Chaluto more than during Yemei Hesgero;

However, regarding relations, both of them are the same!

Answer: When the Gemara says "he holds that one prefers company of others, and he holds that one prefers company of his wife", this refers to a Muchlat;

Explanation: He means that R. Meir's opinion is better regarding a Muchlat, that the Kohen sees his Nega, for if he will be Metamei, also beforehand he was Tamei;

Rhetorical question: If he will be Metaher him, what does he lose? He loses company of his wife. He is not concerned, for he prefers company of others!

R. Yosi's opinion is better regarding a Musgar, (that the Kohen does not see his Nega, for if he will be Metamei him), he loses company of others, for he needs Pri'ah and Frimah, and he calls out "Tamei, Tamei", and he must separate from people;

Note: The Tosfos Yom Tov says that Tosfos was not precise. Toras Kohanim teaches that all Temei'im must announce their Tum'ah! The Mishneh l'Melech disagrees. The Mishnah means that they differ about everything in the verse of Pri'ah and Frimah, which includes calling out "Tamei, Tamei." It is a mere Asmachta that other Temei'im call out.

Another loss is anguish. Until now, he was hoping to be Tahor. Now, he does not hope to become Tahor.

Explanation: Another Tana holds that one prefers company of his wife. This Beraisa means as follows;

R. Meir's opinion is better regarding a Musgar, that the Kohen sees his Nega, for if he will be Metamei him, he does not lose;

A Musgar and Muchlat have the same law, except for Pri'ah and Frimah. He is not concerned for this.

Even if you would call it a loss of company of others, like I explained, he is concerned only for company of his wife.

However, we do not see the Nega of a Muchlat. If the Kohen will be Metaher him, he loses company of his wife. He holds that one prefers company of one's wife to company of others.

Question: Why does Rebbi say Nir'in Divrei R. Meir? R. Meir holds that the Kohen need not say anything. He may be silent if he wants;

Rebbi holds that the Kohen may not be silent at all. According to Rebbi, we never find seeing a Nega only to be lenient, without [a possibility of] being stringent, for he may not be silent at all!

Rebbi should have said "Nir'in Divrei R. Yosi regarding... but not regarding..."

It says so in the Sugya of a drop of milk (Chulin 109a).

Rashi's opinion: This refers to the end of the first Hesger. We see it, for if he is Tahor, this is fine;

If the Nega remains intact (and he is Musgar for another week), also before [the Kohen saw it this time] he was confined!

Question: Perhaps the Nega spread, and he is Tamei Muchlat!

Citation - Nega'im 1:3 (Mishnah): These four appearances of Nega'im join with each other to exempt a Nega that stayed intact at the end of the second week...

Citation (cont.): ... Or to make him Muchlat if a Michyah (healthy skin in the middle of the Nega) or white hair arose at the beginning, at the end of the first week or second week, or after he was exempted (became Tahor)...

Citation (cont.): ... Or to make him Muchlat if the Nega spread at the end of the first week or second week.

Answer #1: We can say that all agree that he sees him [at the end of] the first Hesger;

This is because we cannot expound "Letaharo Oh Letam'o" (which forces the Kohen to rules like one way or the other) until the time when he must be Metamei him [or be Metaher him], i.e. at the end of the second Hesger;

However, at the end of the first Hesger, he can rule that he is Musgar for another week, and not be Metamei him.

Disclaimer: This is a poor answer.

Answer #2 (Rabbeinu Yitzchak): "Hesger Rishon" means at the beginning of Hesger Rishon. He can be silent, for Letaharo Oh Letam'o does not apply;

In Hesger Sheni, i.e. the beginning of Hesger Sheni, perhaps he cannot be silent. The same applies to the end of Hesger Sheni.

Implied question: In Nazir (65b), we expound from this that the Torah began with Taharah, regarding a Safek whether the white hair preceded the Nega [or vice-versa! Therefore, we are lenient about a Safek.]

Answer: There, we expound from the fact that it says "Letaharo" first. Here, we expound the verse itself (that the Kohen must be Metaher or Metamei).

Explanation: Since it is written in the verse after "Acharei Taharaso", they wrote it here.

Note: I.e. really, we expound the Torah verse "mi'Chutz l'Ohalo Shivas Yomim." Scribes erred and wrote "Yispero Lo" (from Yechezkeil), for it is like the verse we expound (Rashash). Keren Orah and Mishmeres Kehunah explain close to this. The Maharsha explains very differently.

Explanation (R. Klonimus): The verse "uv'Od Shishim v'Chamesh Shanah Yechas Efrayim me'Am" is from Nevu'as Amos.

Implied question: Yeshayah said it, and Yeshayah prophesized when Uziyahu had Tzara'as, like it is clear from the verses!

There was a clamor. The higher beings (angels) clamored to burn him, and the lower beings (people) clamored to swallow him.

Answer: It is considered part of Amos' Nevu'ah. He prophesized two years before the clamor that Yisrael (the 10 tribes) will be exiled, for that is when it was decreed.

Question: How many years remained until the exile of [the 10 tribes, when their king was] Hoshe'a ben Alah, which was in the sixth year of Chizkiyahu?

Answer: It was 65 years. There were two years before Uziyahu got Tzara'as, 25 years while he had Tzara'as, for he got Tzara'as 25 years before he died, six years of Yosam, 16 years of Achaz, and after six years of Chizkiyahu came the exile. In all, this is 65 years.

Yosam was 25 years old when he became king. If so, he was conceived in Yemei Chaluto [of Uziyahu].

Implied question: This is difficult for R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah [who forbids relations in Yemei Chaluto]!

Answer: We can say that the Tzara'as came at the end of the year, and conception was at the beginning of the year.

Support (for the calculation): Rashi made this calculation in his Perush on Nevi'im. Also Seder Olam says so.

Question: If so, we must resolve the following. Uziyahu and Yaravam [ben Yo'ash] took reign at the same time (over Yehudah and the 10 tribes, respectively);

Note: It is not clear why this question depends on the above calculation (Rashash).

Yaravam reigned 41 years. If so, he died in the 41st year of Uziyahu. Why does it say "in the 38th year of Azaryah Melech Yehudah, Zecharyah ben Yaravam took reign"? (Azaryah is Uziyahu.)

If so, we are missing three years!

Answer: Zecharyah reigned three years in the life of his father. Some Perushim were edited to say so, that Zecharyah reigned three years in the life of his father.

Question: If so, why doesn't Rebbi expound the Kal va'Chomer? One may expound a Kal va'Chomer by himself (without a tradition for it)!

Answer #1: Perhaps there is a challenge against the Kal va'Chomer.

Answer #2: Perhaps Metzora is a Chidush (so we cannot expound new laws through a Kal va'Chomer).

Answer #3: "Shivas Yomim" is an exclusion, to exclude Yemei Chaluto.

Implied question: [The other opinion holds that this is not an exclusion, for] the Torah needed to teach the law itself [that he waits seven days. Why does Rebbi disagree?]

Answer: "Lo" teaches the exclusion. (Hagahas ha'Bach - the Sifri expounds Lo to exclude Yemei Chaluto.)

Question #1: According to R. Meir, why doesn't the Kohen see it to be lenient?

Note: Sefas Emes says that the verse exempts. Indeed, if he wants, he may ask the Kohen to see it to be lenient. (If not for the verse, it would be obligatory for the Kohen to see it. Even if he is not Metamei him now, he will be sad, for he expects to be declared Tamei next week - PF.)

Question #2: According to the Ri's Perush, that all agree that we see at the beginning of Hesger to be lenient, he can always see it (at the beginning, i.e. even for a Chasan, or during the festival)!

Question #3: Also [according to the Ri], why must we clear everything out of the house before the Kohen sees it. This is unnecessary toil. Perhaps it will be Tahor! (And even if it is Tamei, the Kohen need not be Metamei immediately. They can clear out the house before he is Metamei it!)

Explanation: Rebbi expounds from "u'Finu", and he needs "b'Yom" to exclude night, like below. He does not expound the Vav;

R. Yehudah expounds from "b'Yom". Perhaps he needs "u'Finu Es ha'Bayis" to teach that even bundles of straw or wood [are Mekabel Tum'ah in a house with Tzara'as], like R. Yehudah holds in Nega'im (12:5).

Explanation #1: R. Yehudah holds that it is a Chidush, and we do not learn other delays from it;

He holds that "uva'Yom Hera'os Bo" connotes only delay for a Mitzvah. It connotes that it depends on the day, e.g. the festival, and the same applies to [the seven days of] a Chasan.

Rebbi holds that we include also a delay not for a Mitzvah. We learn from "u'Finu" every matter of Reshus.

They do not argue about [matters of Reshus] in the house, for it says u'Finu Es ha'Bayis! Rather, they argue about Reshus regarding the person himself. (Chazon Ish Nega'im 9:10 - This opinion holds that the Chidush is that the house itself becomes Tamei. We do not distinguish waiting for a house for Reshus or Mitzvah, but we may not learn to people. The next opinion holds that the Chidush is that here, detached wood and rocks in the house are Mekabel Tum'ah. Since the Torah was stringent to be Metamei them, it was lenient to permit waiting until they are cleared out. We may not learn to waiting for Reshus, even for a house.)

Explanation #2: Alternatively, they argue about other matters of Reshus, such as bundles of straw, and they argue about houses;

According to R. Yehudah, who says that it is a Chidush, we do not learn, for [normally] wood and rocks are not Mekabel Tum'ah, but here they are;