Explanation: ["Oh b'Kever" teaches about a coffin before the Dibur, i.e.] before Matan Torah.

Question: According to Rabanan of R. Shimon, who say that even graves of Nochrim are Metamei b'Ohel, for they do not expound "Adam Atem" - [only] you [Yisrael] are called Adam..., what do we learn from [this Drashah from] "Oh b'Kever"?

Answer: This Drashah is like R. Shimon.

Question: Regarding touching, R. Shimon agrees that graves of Nochrim are Metamei through touching and moving, like Ravina said in Yevamos (61a)! (We already knew this without "Oh b'Kever." Since it does not add Tum'as Ohel, what does it teach?)

Poor Answer #1: This Drashah is unlike Ravina.

Answer #2 (Riva): "A coffin before the Dibur" refers also to those who died after Matan Torah, before Parshas Tum'as Mes was said;

One might have thought that "Adam Ki Yamus b'Ohel" means [one who will die] from [when was said] this Parshah and onwards. (The Drashah includes even those who died before the Parshah was said.)

Support: We find like this in Horiyos (10a). We require a verse for a Zav before Matan Torah, because he holds that "Ish Ish Ki Yihyeh Zav mi'Besaro" is from now and onwards (one who will have an emission).

Question: According to R. Shimon, why did R. Bena'ah mark off [above the places of the bodies] in Ma'aras ha'Machpelah, in Bava Basra (58a)?

According to R. Shimon, those who died before Matan Torah are not Metamei b'Ohel;

In Mo'ed Katan (5a), we say that we do not mark off for something that is not Metamei b'Ohel!

Answer (Riva): Adam ha'Rishon is properly called Adam, and Avraham is called "ha'Adam ha'Gadol ba'Anakim." (This is difficult, for even regarding Yisrael, R. Shimon does not include those who died before Matan Torah! See Arzei ha'Levanon.)

Answer #3 (to Question (d)): [Ravina] holds that from ["Oh b'Kever", from which R. Shimon includes regarding Yisrael] "a coffin before the Dibur", we include [also all] graves after the Dibur, i.e. after Matan Torah (for Tum'ah through touching and moving. Birkas Rosh - just like "Ki Yamus" does not exclude those who died beforehand, the same applies to "Kol Asher Yiga".)

Explanation: [Even though there is no bone the size of a barley seed, the Torah included that it is Metamei,] since it has a full limb.

Citation of Gemara: R. Yochanan can say that really, it has a bone the size of a barley seed. Im Eino Inyan for Tum'as Maga (through touching), Tenehu Inyan for Masa (through moving it).

Explanation: Since we do not need it for touching, since we learn that "ha'Noge'a b'Etzem", we use it to teach Masa, that a bone the size of a barley seed has Tum'as Masa.

Question: If so, why does [the Tana] say that "Oh b'Mes" teaches about a limb that came off the Mes, and it does not have [enough flesh to heal]?

He should say that it refers to a bone the size of a barley seed! (The Tana expounds that it has Tum'as Masa, and the Tum'ah is due only to the bone.)

Citation of Gemara: He does not begin to count [Nezirus Taharah] until he becomes Tahor and brings his Korbanos.

Explanation: We ask whether "until he becomes Tahor" in our Mishnah refers to the seventh day, after he received Haza'ah and immersed and shaved, and he begins from that day to count Nezirus Taharah, and he brings his Korbanos on day eight;

This is like R. Eliezer, who said above (18b) that he begins and counts immediately. I.e. he begins to count on day seven, like I explained there.

Or, perhaps it refers to day eight. "Until he becomes Tahor" means that he brings his Korbanos;

This is like Rabanan, who say that "v'Kidash Es Rosho ba'Yom ha'Hu" refers to the day of bringing his Korbanos.

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Kesuvos 4b): Golel is the coffin cover. Dofek is the side wall of the coffin.

Objection (R. Tam): It says in Chulin (72a) that "Al Pnei ha'Sadeh" includes Golel and Dofek. This implies that Golel and Dofek are exposed (on the face of the field), but these (the cover and side wall of the coffin) are covered!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Golel is a monument, and Dofek are rocks that support the monument. Elsewhere, this is explained at length.

Explanation: Even though they are Metamei b'Ohel, a Nazir does not shave for them.

Implied question: We should have taught less than a half-Log of blood, or less than a half Kav [of bones. It is a bigger Chidush that he does not shave for these!]

Answer: The Tana adopted the Shi'urim explicitly in the first Perek of Ohalos, which teaches that they are Metamei b'Ohel.

Explanation: A Nazir counted part of the days of his Nezirus and became a Metzora. [We say that the days do not count, i.e.] both during Yemei Gamro, when he is Muchat, that they ruled that his Tum'ah is absolute...

Also during Yemei Sifro, after he was Muchlat, and the Kohen saw that the Tzara'as healed, and he brings birds, shaves and enters Machaneh Yisrael, and dwells outside his tent for seven days, for he is forbidden relations...

On the seventh day he shaves, and on day eight he brings Korbanos for his Tzara'as. Those days are called Yemei Sifro, and they do not count towards his days of Nezirus, and they do not cancel the previous days.

Explanation (cont.): [The Mishnah] needed to teach that Yemei Sifro and Yemei Gamro. Had it taught only Yemei Sifro, we would have said that Yemei Gamro, which are more stringent, cancel;

[The Mishnah] needed to teach that Yemei Gamro, we would have thought that Yemei Sifro count [towards Nezirus].

Question: It should have taught only Yemei Sifro. We could not say that Yemei Gamro cancel, for if so, why would it need to teach that Yemei Sifro do not cancel? They were already cancelled through Yemei Gamro! (Rashash, Orach Mishur and Birkas Rosh suggest answers to this.)

Explanation: Also, the days do not count towards his Nezirus.

Citation of Gemara: He begins and counts immediately.

Explanation: In the place that he stopped counting when he became Tamei, he begins (resumes) counting, for the days of Tum'ah do not count towards his Nezirus;

Also, he brings Korban Nazir Tamei, i.e. Chatas [ha'Of] and Olas ha'Of, but he does not bring the Asham.

Question (R"SH): Granted, all of these are fine. Just like he does not cancel the previous days, they do not count for him;

However, "Kelim that touch a Mes" refers even to Klei Shetef (i.e. of wood), like the Gemara connotes, and when the Nazir touches it, he is Tamei only Tum'as Erev. Why doesn't [the day] count for him?!

Citation (Nidah 68b): Mid'Oraisa, this is not an Ohel, for the branches are far from each other, and they do not have a [square] Tefach [to tower above the Tum'ah];

Even if there is surely a k'Zayis of a Mes under one of them, mid'Oraisa, he is Tahor even if he walked under all [of the branches];

Rabanan decreed Tum'ah on one who walks underneath it.

Explanation: It is next to a cemetery, and there is a Nefel under one of the rocks [jutting out of the wall];

Note: Perhaps Tosfos discusses a Nefel, for normally they mark off where a regular Mes is buried, so there would be no Safek.

Chachamim decreed Tum'ah on one who walks under one of the rocks, even though [normally] Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim is Tahor [even mid'Rabanan].

In Nidah (68b) it connotes that one who walks under all [of the rocks] is Vadai Tamei.

Explanation: [They decreed even in a way that he did not tower above the ground,] e.g. if one goes in a chest, box or tower bigger than 40 Sa'im, which are not Mekabel Tum'ah, or on a bridge of Eretz ha'Amim, or one who enters in a wagon or boat;

Rabanan were stringent [to decree] more than Ohel ha'Mes, so people will not go to Chutz la'Aretz.

Or, perhaps they decreed only about one who towers above the earth, like one who towers above a Mes, due to people who died in the flood [and they could be buried anywhere], or due to the many Yisre'elim killed in Chutz la'Aretz;

However, one who enters in a chest, box, tower, wagon or boat does not [become Tamei].

Implied question: Shabbos (15b) connotes that they decreed about the earth and the air!

Answer: It means that [they decreed] whether he touched the earth or towered over the earth without any interruption between [him and] the earth;

However, it does not discuss one who enters in a chest, box, or tower, in which there is a Hefsek.

Question (R. Yakov of Orlins): A Mishnah in Ohalos (2:3) says that the following are Metamei through touching and moving, but not through Ohel - Eretz ha'Amim, Beis ha'Peras...

Here it connotes that it is obvious to us at least when he towers above the earth without a Hefsek of a chest, box or tower!

Answer #1 (Ri of Orlins): There we discuss earth of Eretz ha'Amim that was brought to Eretz Yisrael.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): That [Mishnah in Ohalos] was taught before the latter decree of Maseches Shabbos. It says there (15b) that first they did not decree about the air at all.

Answer #3: It is not Metamei until he enters his head and the majority of his body, like it connotes at the end of our Sugya, but not when he merely enters his hand;

This is unlike Ohel ha'Mes. It is Metamei even if he enters his hand.

Explanation: It is unreasonable that they would obligate in such a case Haza'ah on day three and day seven. Since he is Metamei even when there is a Hefsek between him and the earth, it is not at all related to Tum'as Ohel, to obligate Haza'ah on days three and seven;

We answer that this (Haza'ah) was taught regarding the other cases.

We support this, for it teaches Kelim that touch a Mes. Do these Kelim obligate Haza'ah?! One who touches them gets only Tum'as Erev, but not Tum'as Shivah! Rather, [Haza'ah] was taught regarding the other cases.

Explanation: The Gemara understands that the Tana discusses even Klei Shetef that touched a Mes. They are an Av ha'Tum'ah, and one who touches them has Tum'as Erev, like one who touched a Stam Tamei Mes. He does not require Haza'ah. This shows that [Haza'ah] was taught regarding the other cases.

Question: He should answer that it discusses metal Kelim. One who touches them gets Tum'as Shivah, and requires Haza'ah on days three and seven, for a sword [that touched a Mes] is like a Mes!

Answer (R. Tam): You cannot establish our Mishnah to discuss metal Kelim, for if so, a Nazir shaves, for a sword is like a Mes.

Question #1: R. Chaim Kohen sent to R. Tam "Eizehu Bayis Asher Tivnu Li" (what house will you build for me), that a Nazir need not shave for entering it, and likewise a Kohen is not forbidden to enter it? You cannot find a house without a metal Kli that was in Ohel ha'Mes, or [such] a nail!

[The question is based on what] it says in Maseches Semachos (4:21) that any Tum'ah for which a Nazir shaves, a Kohen is commanded about it.

Question #2 - Citation (Tosefta Ohalos 1:2): There are four Tum'os regarding a Mes. Kelim that touch the Mes, a person touches the Kelim, and Kelim touch the person. They have Tum'as Shivah;

Citation (cont.): The fourth, whether it is a person or Kli, has Tum'as Erev;

Citation (cont.): What is the case? This is for Terumah and Kodshim. However, a Nazir shaves only for a Mes.

Explanation: This excludes Kelim that touch a Mes, which it was discussing. Surely a Nazir shaves for Ever Min ha'Chai, and all these listed in our Mishnah!

You are forced to say that there we discuss metal Kelim, for regarding Klei Shetef, you cannot find that four are Teme'im!

Conclusion: Rather, we find these (four Teme'im) only through metal Kelim, for the Torah said that a sword is like a Mes, like it is explicit [in the Torah];

However, a Kli Shetef is not like a Mes. We infer that a Nazir does not shave for them.

Implied question: Why don't we establish our Mishnah to discuss metal Kelim?

Answer: Even without this, we knew that [Haza'ah] was taught regarding the other cases. You cannot say that "he receives Haza'ah on days three and seven" refers to all the cases, for it teaches Yemei Sifro and Yemei Gamro, and they do not receive Haza'ah.

Question: Our Sugya is difficult for R. Yitzchak of Simpont, who explained that the Mishnah in Ohalos refers to both metal Kelim and other Kelim;

We learn all of them from metal Kelim, for the Torah said that a sword is like a Mes, and the same applies to other Kelim.

[This is difficult,] for we explicitly say in our Sugya that one who touches other Kelim has only Tum'as Erev!

Answer: We could dispel [this challenge] a little, and say that the question "do we sprinkle on them?!" does not refer to Kelim that touched a Mes, rather, [Yemei] Sifro and Gamro, which are taught after this. It is as if the Gemara said [these Kelim] etc.

Rejection: I disagree. This requires investigation. This is from R. Peretz.

Proof #1 (for R. Yitzchak of Simpont - R. Yitzchak) Citation (Tosefta Kelim 6:13): A pouch that was put in an oven, and its mouth is above the oven, and a bone the size of a barley seed is wrapped in a shoot or paper and put inside [the pouch], it (the pouch) is Tahor and the oven is Tahor;

It is Tahor, because [the bone] is wrapped in a shoot. The oven is Tahor, because [the Torah said that an oven becomes Tamei through Tum'ah] Tocho (in it), and not Toch Tocho (in a Kli in it).

Citation (cont.): If a Tahor person came and held it and raised it, he is Tamei, for he moved a bone the size of a barley seed. He was Metamei the pouch, and the pouch was Metamei the oven.

Inference: The pouch is like a person. It becomes an Av ha'Tum'ah to be Metamei the oven. Even though it (the pouch) is not a metal Kli, we equate it to a person to be an Av ha'Tum'ah like him, that he became Tamei through the bone, which is Avi Avos [ha'Tum'ah].

Rejection: There, it is due to di'Ykarev bedi'Ykarev. The person became Tamei through moving a bone the size of a barley seed, and while he was carrying the bone of the Mes, which is Avi Avos, at that same time he was touching the pouch, and the pouch [was touching] the oven.

Proof #2 - Citation (Sifri) Question: Why do we need "Kol Asher Yiga Bo ha'Tamei Yitma"?

Citation (cont.) Answer: Because it says 'ba'Chalal Cherev", the verse comes to teach that a sword is Tamei Tum'as Shiv'ah. This teaches how Kelim [that touched a Mes] and a person [who touches the Kelim can become Tamei from a Mes]. What is the source for Kelim [that touched a Mes], a person [who touches the Kelim], and Kelim [that touched the person]?

Citation (cont.): The Torah says "v'Chibastem Bigdeichem ba'Yom ha'Shevi'i u'T'hartem." I.e. the garments that touch a person who touches Kelim that touched a Mes are Tamei for seven days;

"Stam garments" connotes even if they are not metal Kelim.

Rejection (R. Tam): Metal ornaments are properly called Begadim, like it says about Bigdei Kehunah "Eleh ha'Begadim Asher Ya'asu", and it lists the Tzitz [among them].

Note: Maharsham (2:94) questions this, because right after "Eleh ha'Begadim...", the Torah lists the other Bigdei Kehunah, but not the Tzitz! The Torah does command to make the Tzitz after the commands to make the other Begadim.

Summation: The general rule is, if Kelim touch a Mes, or Kelim touch a [Tamei] person, they (the Kelim) are [Tamei] like it (the Mes or person);

If a person touched a Mes, or a person touched [Tamei] Kelim, or Kelim touched Kelim, or a person touched a person, [what became Tamei] descended one level. (If the Metamei was Avi Avos, what it touched became an Av ha'Tum'ah. If the Metamei was Av ha'Tum'ah, what it touched became a Rishon l'Tum'ah.

Whereas if metal Kelim touched a Mes, they are like it, for a sword is like a Mes. Also Kelim that touched a person [are like the person], like it says "v'Chibastem Bigdeichem."

Distinction: However, Kelim that touch Kelim, we do not find that they make [the Nitma] like [the Metamei].

Kelim that touch Kelim, the third (that touch Kelim that touch Kelim that touched a Mes) have only Tum'as Erev, whether [the third] is a person or Kelim;

However, Kelim that touched a person [who touched a Mes], they are like the person. Just like the person has Tum'as Shivah, also the Kelim he touches have Tum'as Shivah.

Kelim that touched a Mes, they are like a Mes. Just like a Mes is Avi Avos, to be Metamei a person or Kelim Tum'as Shivah, also a Kli is Metamei a person or Kelim Tum'as Shivah. There is nothing else to add.