Question (R. Yochanan): What is your source that a Mes that lost its form is Tahor?

Suggestion: You learn from R. Shabtai.

(R. Shabtai): A case occurred in which a Mes was burned and the Sheled (form; Rambam - skeleton) was intact. Chachamim ruled that big doorways (at least four Tefachim wide) are Teme'im (mid'Rabanan, we consider it as if the Mes left through each one), and small doorways are Tehorim.

You inferred that had the Sheled not been intact, it would be Tahor.

Rejection: Just the contrary! Because the Sheled was intact, the small doorways are Tehorim (because the Mes will be removed from the house intact, through a big opening). If not, all openings (of at least a Tefach) would be Teme'im, for each is proper to remove a limb of the Mes!

Question (Ravina): Like which Tana does R. Yochanan hold?

Answer: He holds like R. Eliezer;

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): A Rova (quarter Kav) of ashes of Mesim is Metamei like a Mes (even though the Sheled is not intact).

Question: How is it possible that it was burned, and the Sheled is intact?

Answer #1 (Abaye): It was burned on a hard leather mold. (This kept the ashes in place/)

Answer #2 (Rava): It was burned on marble. (This kept the ashes in place.)

Answer #3 (Ravina): It was singed. It did not fully burn.

(Beraisa): If a woman miscarried a hand or foot in which the fingers or toes are delineated, she is a Yoledes. We are not concerned that it came from an Atum body.

(Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna): She does not have the leniency of Dam Tohar.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Perhaps the body came out (dissolved) many days ago (at least 26), and (after two weeks of Safek Tum'as Yoledes Nekevah, in case the body came out now) the days of Dam Tohar have ended.

Question (Rav Yosef - Mishnah): If a woman miscarried and does not know what it was, she is Teme'ah like Yoledes Zachar or Nekevah.

If we are concerned lest the baby came out earlier, she should also be Safek Nidah (i.e. without Dam Tohar)!

Answer (Abaye): Indeed, she is. The Tana omitted this, lest it connote that (the Chatas of) her Korban is not eaten;

He mentioned only Zachar and Nekevah, so we understand that she brings a Korban and it is eaten.

(Rav Huna): If a fetus stuck its hand out and returned it, the mother is a Yoledes -- "va'Yehi v'Lidetah va'Yiten Yad." (This is called a birth.)

Question (Rav Yehudah - Beraisa): If a fetus stuck its hand out, the mother is not concerned for any Tum'ah (due to this).

Answer (Rav Nachman): Rav Huna explained the Beraisa to me. She is concerned for Tum'as Yoledes, but she does not have the leniency of Dam Tohar unless the majority comes out.

Question: The Beraisa says "she is not concerned for any Tum'ah"!

Answer (Abaye): Mid'Oraisa, she is not concerned for any Tum'ah. Mid'Rabanan, she is.

Question: Rav Huna learned from a verse! (The Tum'ah is mid'Oraisa.)

Answer: The verse is only an Asmachta.

(Mishnah): If a woman miscarried a Tumtum or Androginus, she is Teme'ah like Yoledes Zachar or Nekevah. (She adopts the stringencies of both. The same applies if the baby lived);

If she miscarried a male and a Tumtum or Androginus, she is Yoledes Zachar or Nekevah;

If she miscarried a female and a Tumtum or Androginus, she is Yoledes Nekevah;

If the fetus came out cut up or Mesuras (Rambam, Rashi - backwards, i.e. feet first), once the majority leaves, it is considered born;

If it came out normally (head first), once the majority of the head leaves it is born.

When the forehead leaves, the majority of the head has left.

(Gemara) Question: If she is Yoledes a Tumtum or Androginus alone she is like Yoledes Zachar or Nekavah, and all the more so if she miscarried a male and a Tumtum or Androginus!

Answer: One might have thought that she is (only) Yoledes Zachar, due to R. Yitzchak's teaching;

(R. Yitzchak): If the man was Mazri'a before the woman, the child will be a girl. If she is Mazra'as first, the child will be a boy.

One might have thought that since one child is a boy, surely she was Mazri'ah first, so both are boys. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. Perhaps both were Mazri'a at the same time, so the children can be either gender.

(Rav): If a Tumtum or Androginus (Ploni) saw Keri (a seminal emission) or blood, and Ploni entered the Mikdash and touched Terumah, Ploni is exempt. We do not burn the Terumah (perhaps Ploni's gender does not become Tamei from this emission);

If Ploni saw Keri and blood and touched Terumah, we burn the Terumah. (Ploni is definitely Tamei);

If Ploni entered the Mikdash, Ploni is exempt. "Mi'Zachar Ad Nekevah Tishalechu" commands a definite male or female, but not a Tumtum or Androginus.

Support (Beraisa): If a Tumtum or Androginus saw Keri or blood, if he entered the Mikdash he is exempt. If he touched Terumah we do not burn it;

If he saw Keri and blood, we burn Terumah. He is exempt for entering the Mikdash.

Suggestion: This is due to "mi'Zachar Ad Nekevah Tishalechu"!

Rejection (Ula): No, the Beraisa is like R. Eliezer;

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): "Sheretz Tamei v'Ne'elam" teaches that one brings a Korban for Tum'as Mikdash only if he forgot the Sheretz (what made him Tamei), but not if he forgot the Mikdash;

R. Akiva says, "v'Ne'elam Mimenu v'Hu Tamei" obligates a Korban only if he forgot the Tum'ah, but not if he forgot the Mikdash.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer #1 (Chizkiyah): They argue about whether or not he must know what made him Tamei;

R. Eliezer holds that he brings a Korban only if he knew how he became Tamei, e.g. through a Sheretz or a Nevelah. R. Akiva holds that it suffices that he knew that he became Tamei.

R. Eliezer exempts unless he knew what was Metamei him. Here, he must know whether he is Tamei due to Keri or due to blood;

According to R. Akiva, he is liable as long as he once knew that he was Tamei.

Question: Rav exempts for entering the Mikdash due to "mi'Zachar Ad Nekevah Tishalechu" (a definite male or female);

Similarly, we should not burn Terumah! "Veha'Zav Es Zovo la'Zachar vela'Nekevah" refers to a definite male or female, but not a Tumtum or Androginus!

Answer: We expound R. Yitzchak's law from that verse;

(R. Yitzchak): "La'Zachar" includes a Metzora. (His Mayanos (bodily fluids) are Avos ha'Tum'ah.) "Vela'Nekevah" includes (the Mayanos of) a Metzora'as.

Question: Also "mi'Zachar... " teaches something else!

(Beraisa - R. Yosi): The Mitzvah to expel Tum'ah from the Mikdash applies to whatever can become Tahor in a Mikveh (like men and women). This excludes Klei Cheres.

Answer: Had it came to teach only that, it should have said "Adam." (Rather, it says "mi'Zachar... " to teach both.)

Question: Had it said "Adam," one might have thought that metal Kelim are excluded (i.e. they need not be expelled)!

Answer: "V'Chol Tamei la'Nafesh" includes metal Kelim;

"Mi'Zachar Ad Nekevah" is needed only for Rav's teaching.

Question: Perhaps it comes to teach only Rav's law (and does not exclude earthenware)!

Answer: If so, it should say "Zachar u'Nekevah";

Rather, it says "mi'Zachar Ad Nekevah," i.e. everything with the law of males and females, i.e. a Mikveh can be Metaher it.

Question: If so (the verse discusses other Tum'os), a Tumtum or Androginus should not be sent from the Mikdash due to any Tum'ah!

Answer: "Mi'Zachar" discusses a Tum'ah that emanates from a male.

Question: "Mi'Zachar Ad Nekevah" does not always exclude a Tumtum and Androginus!

It says "ha'Zachar" regarding Erchin (pledging to Hekdesh an amount based on one's age and gender);

(Beraisa): "Ha'Zachar" excludes a Tumtum or Androginus;

Suggestion: Perhaps a Tumtum or Androginus does not have the Erech of a male, but he has the Erech of a female!

Rejection: "Ha'Zachar... v'Im Nekevah" teaches that Erchin applies only to definite males and females.

Summation of question: We exclude only Tumtum and Androginus because it says "ha'Zachar" and "v'Im Nekevah." Had it said only "Zachar u'Nekevah," we would not exclude them!

Answer: "Zachar u'Nekevah" is needed to teach that the Erchin of males and females are different.