Explanation: E.g. a person walks in water, and a k'Zayis of a Mes was found fixed in the water. It is a Safek whether or not the Tahor passed over it and towered over the Mes;

Distinction: In such a case of a Sheretz he is Tahor, or regarding Tum'as Maga of Mes. Floating Taharah and fixed Tum'ah is just like floating Tum'ah and fixed Taharah. In any case, regarding Ohel we are not Metaher.

Citation of Gemara: "And anything that is Metamei above like below" includes a Zav and Zavah.

Explanation: He is Metamei through Heset, and similarly Elyono Shel Zav v'Zavah (what is above him) is like below his Mishkav (a Kli made to sit on it);

If a Zav or Zavah passed through water, and a Kli is by them, and it is a Safek whether or not they moved it, we should be Metaher due to floating Tum'ah only Maga, similar to a Sheretz;

Similarly, if there are Medrasos (Kelim that can be Mekabel Tum'ah if he steps on them) there, and a Zav passes, and it is a Safek whether or not he stepped on them, we should be Metaher due to floating Tum'ah.

Explanation: [If we consider the Kli,] it is resting. Or, perhaps we consider the water, and it is not resting.

Explanation (cont.): [We ask] what is the law of [Tum'as] Mes on a Sheretz? Since the latter is Tum'as Erev, and the former is Tum'as Shivah, it is as if it is in a Kli;

Or, perhaps since both of them are Tum'ah, it is like a continuous Tum'ah!

Explanation (cont.): If you will say that it is as if it is in a Kli, if a Sheretz is on a Neveilah, and the Neveilah floats on water, what is the law?

Since both of them have Tum'as Erev, it is like a continuous Tum'ah, like one thick Tum'ah. It is not considered to be resting [in a Kli];

Or, perhaps [since] this (a Neveilah's Shi'ur for Tum'ah) is a k'Zayis, and this (a Sheretz' Shi'ur) is ka'Adashah (a lentil's worth, it is considered like resting in a Kli).

Explanation (cont.): If a Sheretz is on a Sheretz, what is the law?

Surely they have the same Shi'ur [for Tum'ah, so it is like a continuous Tum'ah]. Or, perhaps since they are separate from each other, not (it is considered to be resting in a Kli).

Explanation (cont.): If you will say that since they are separate, no, (it is as if it is in a Kli), if a Sheretz is on a melted Neveilah, is the Neveilah considered like a liquid, and the Sheretz on it is considered like a Tum'ah floating on water?

Or perhaps [the melted Neveilah] is considered food?

Explanation (cont.): If you will say that it is considered food, and it is not considered a liquid, and the Sheretz on it is not considered to be floating on water, since the melted Neveilah floating on the water, its Shi'ur is a k'Zayis, and [the Sheretz'] Shi'ur is ka'Adashah, it is considered like resting [in a Kli]...

If a Sheretz is on semen, what is the law? Is [the semen] considered like a liquid?

Explanation (cont.): If you will say that since it was uprooted from the body, it is not considered a liquid, rather, we consider it like a food, if a Sheretz is on Mei Chatas [what is the law]?

There were ashes [of the Parah Adumah] and water, and due to the ashes, it is thick.

Implied question (Ri): Why did [Rami bar Chama] asked about Mei Chatas? He could have asked about Stam ashes and water, whether or not it is considered a liquid!

Answer (Ri): He discussed Mei Chatas for a bigger Chidush. Even though we could say that both of them are Tum'ah (Mei Chatas is Metamei one who carries it without need), it is like a continuous Tum'ah [still, perhaps it is considered like floating on water].

Citation of Gemara: [If a Sheretz is on] Mei Chatas floating on water, what is the law?

Explanation: Since the Mei Chatas is considered a liquid, this is like [a Sheretz] floating on water. (Or, perhaps Mei Chatas is not considered a liquid.)

Explanation: He needs Tiglachas Tum'ah. Our Mishnah discusses when he must do Tiglachas [Tum'ah], for he did not even immerse yet, for he descended to immerse, and all the more so he did not shave yet, which is after [Tevilah]!

Rav Hamnuna discusses the seventh day, after he shaved. Even though he needs ha'Arev Shemesh, he is not considered to have Chezkas Tum'ah due to this, like the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Citation of Gemara: Also I admit to you about a Nazir or one who offers Pesach, who is not lacking anything.

Explanation: After he immersed and shaved [he is not lacking anything].

Citation of Gemara: Abaye said "he is lacking ha'Arev Shemesh!" Rava answered that night comes automatically.

Observation: Abaye retracted and agreed that night comes automatically, and this is not considered lacking.

Explanation: "Yom Melos" is not precise. Rather, if she gave birth even on day 81 (and all the more so afterwards), she brings two Korbanos;

Within Melos means that she gave birth within the days of [Tum'ah of] the first birth. She brings only one Korban.

Suggestion: Perhaps she does not bring for a birth before Melos, but she brings for a birth after Melos!

E.g. she gave birth to the second on day 64 from the first birth, and gave birth again on day 64 from the second birth, which is within Melos of the second birth, and after Melos of the first birth.

Explanation (cont.): [The Gemara answers] it says "uvi'Melos Yemei Taharah" - on Yom Melos [or later] she brings [a Korban], but within Melos she does not bring;

Whatever is within Melos, both of the first birth, or of the latter birth, which is exempted through the Korban of the first, she brings only one Korban.

Citation of Gemara: Rav Kahana said that the reason is because she is lacking a Korban.

Explanation: Due to this she is exempted through one Korban, because she is lacking a Korban of birth, and there was never a time when she was proper to bring a Korban for the first birth, [for it says] "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga v'El ha'Mikdash Lo Savo Ad Melos Yemei Taharah";

Since she gave birth a second time, she cannot bring a Korban for the first birth until Melos of the second birth, and since she did not reach Melos after the second birth until she gave birth a third time, it is proper that she be exempt through one Korban.

Explanation #1: (We discuss one who did not immerse at all yet.) Not only the lack of Tevilah is not considered lacking, for there is a Mikveh in front of him, and he can immerse [immediately]...

Rather, even ha'Arev Shemesh, which is not in his power [to do immediately], is not considered lacking, for night comes automatically.

Explanation #2: Some explain that she is lacking ha'Arev Shemesh from Tevilah mid'Rabanan at the end of 81 days, like it says in Chagigah (21a, that anyone who was forbidden Kodshim must immerse before he may eat Kodshim).

Objection #1: We say [here] that mid'Oraisa she needs Tevilah [for it affects her Korban]!

Objection #2: [That Tevilah at the end of 81 days] does not require ha'Arev Shemesh, like it teaches there that a Mechusar Kipurim needs Tevilah for Kodesh, and we infer regarding other matters "he requires Tevilah, but not ha'Arev Shemesh."

Implied question: Regarding a known grave, it says in Sanhedrin (47b) that one may not move it!

Answer: That is only when it is known that it was intended that he remain buried there;

However, if he was found, we say there that one may move it. Since the grave was not known to people, it is proper to say that he was buried there haphazardly.

Explanation: I.e. it is revealed, since three were found, that there was a cemetery there. Therefore, one may not move them;

Also, one must check past there 20 Amos, for surely it was a cemetery.

They used to bury in caves, like we say in Bava Basra (101a). There it explains according to this version that this Tana holds that the interior of the cave is four by eight Amos, like R. Shimon in the Beraisa;

These three [Mesim] were not found within four Amos, like it is proven there, for the width of the cavity [to hold the coffin] is an Amah, and there is an Amah between cavities, and half an Amah free next to the wall of the cave on two sides;

Consequence: [At most] two graves are found within four Amos!

Implied question: It says [that three graves were found] between four and eight [Amos]!

Answer #1: It means that the three are resting in a way proper to bury three Mesim in a cave four Amos wide and eight Amos long;

Two of them are on the width, in two cavities, and the third is not more than half an Amah away, for this is the rule in a cave four wide and eight long. R. Tam answered like this. (See the first picture in the Rashbam in Bava Basra 101a. The two on the width are at the far right (or both at the far left) of the picture. The third is on the long side, adjacent to one of them, i.e. on the other side of the corner and perpendicular to it. (To simplify the explanation, we assume that the two are on the right, and the third is on the top side.) If we would extend the third grave along its length, the right side would be half an Amah to the left of the left ends of the first two. Likewise, if we would extend one of the first two graves, i.e. the top one, along its length, the top side would be half an Amah below the bottom of the third.)

Note: Why do we assume that the graves are positioned like this? We say below (65b) that Chachamim found an excuse to be Metaher. However, it seems that we needed to say so only regarding one who did not find another grave within 20 Amos! Perhaps they used to begin burying on the end of the cave, as far from the Chatzer as possible. Perhaps the words of Tosfos "she'Chen Mishpat ha'Ma'arah" hint to this.

Answer #2: The Rashbam explained that the three cavities were found within four Amos. This is wrong, like I explained.

Citation of Gemara: From four Amos until eight.

The text: The text does not say "like the bier and those are who bury it", for this is taught regarding [the dimensions of] the Chatzer of the grave, in Bava Basra.