1)

(a)Rabah suggested to Rav Huna that we might learn from the Pasuk in Metzora " ... asher Teitzei Mimenu Shichvas Zera" - that someone who inserts a splinter of wood into the Amah and subsequently finds Zera on it, will remain Tahor (because the Zera did not emerge from the Amah by itself).

(b)Alternatively, we might learn from there - that Shichvas-Zera is only Metamei once it has emerged from the body.

(c)Rav Huna rejected the She'eilah outright, based on the Shi'ur that is required to render the person Tamei - sufficient to fill the tip of the Amah ...

(d)... which the amount on the tip of a splinter will obviously not reach.

2)

(a)Rabah extrapolated from the fact that Keri requires a Shi'ur, as opposed to Nidus for example, which does not - that a Ba'al-Keri is not Tamei because he sighted Keri (because if he was, then, like a Nidah, he would not require a Shi'ur).

(b)This prompted him to query the D'rashah from the Hekesh of Zera to Zivus (in the Pasuk there "Zos Toras ha'Zav va'asher Teitzei Mimenu Shichvas-Zera"), from which we learn that seeing Keri (like seeing Zivus) detracts from the seven clean days required by a Zav before he can become Tahor ...

(c)... implying that a Ba'al-Keri is Tamei because of the sighting (like a Zav) and not because he touched Zera.

(d)To which Rav Huna replied that we actually learn from the Hekesh (not that Keri itself breaks the sequence, but) - that the Keri sighted by a Zav is bound to contain a few drops of Zivus.

3)

(a)Rabah queried Rav Huna further from another a Beraisa, which (following the Hekesh that we just discussed) Darshens from the Pasuk there "Letam'ah bah" - that just as Keri itself only renders Tamei for one day, so too, does it only negate the day (during the seven clean days) on which it is seen (and not all seven days, like Zivus does) ...

(b)... a Kashya on Rav Huna - who maintains that even a sighting of Keri breaks the seven days because it contains Zivus; so why should it not negate all seven days?

(c)Rav Huna replied however - that it is a 'Gezeiras-ha'Kasuv' that a drop of Zivus that is mixed in a majority of Keri (unlike Zivus on its own) only negates one day.

4)

(a)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina asked Rebbi Elazar whether, based on the Pasuk there "ve'Ishah ki Yazuv Zov Damah", dry blood is Metamei, in spite of the implication that only blood that flows is - if the Pasuk is speaking about a common case (but does for its implication).

(b)Rebbi Elazar tried to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, which rules that both the blood of a Nidah and the flesh of a Meis are Metamei - even when they are dry.

(c)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina ...

1. ... rejected this proof however - because he meant to ask about a clot of blood that emerged dry from the womb, whereas the Beraisa is speaking about blood that was initially wet but that dried afterwards, which he ...

2. ... understood - on the basis of 'Basar Meis' which obviously died only after the person died.

5)

(a)Rebbi Elazar replied that, in that case, we can resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah - where the Tana rules that a woman who miscarries a form of a scab (or crust of a wound) ... is Tamei, provided it subsequently melts in water (a proof that dry blood is considered Nidus).

(b)When we ask why the same shouldthen not apply even if it does not melt, Rabah replies - that the fact that it does not melt proves that it is an independent entity (and not blood).

6)

(a)We support the previous statement with a Beraisa that describes how Rebbi Tzadok brought a She'eilah (concerning a woman who gave birth to a sort of scab) that he was asked in Tiv'in to Yavneh. The person who cited this episode was - Rebbi Tzadok's son, Rebbi Elazar.

(b)The Chachamim in Yavneh presented it to - the doctors ...

(c)... who replied...

1. ... in this case - that if it did not melt in water, the scab came from a wound inside the woman's stomach, and ...

2. ... in a similar case of a woman who miscarried something that resembled red hairs - that it came from a wart in her stomach.

(d)Resh Lakish requires the water in which one places the above to be warm - because should she place it in cold water and it does not melt, we will claim that had she placed in warm water, it would have melted (and rule that she is Tamei mi'Safek).

7)

(a)The Beraisa that we cite in support of Resh Lakish adds the opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who suggests that one examines the scab - by rubbing it with spit.

(b)Ravina explains - that the Tana Kama disagrees with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, because in his opinion, the blood must melt by itself, and that the necessity to induce it to do so itself proves that it a piece of flesh (and not blood).

(c)The Mishnah in the seventh Perek requires placing in water for twenty-four hours - a Sheretz or a piece of Neveilah that has gone hard (because if it once again become soft, it will continue to be Metamei.

(d)We suggest that maybe in our case, less will suffice - because congealed blood is considerably softer than a hardened rodent or piece of Neveilah.

(e)The outcome of this She'eilah is - 'Teiku' (Tishbi Yetaretz Kushyos ve'Ibayos).

8)

(a)Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah rules that a woman who miscarries something that resembles an animal a beast or a bird, is Tamei Leidah. Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel cites the basis for this ruling - the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' (in Bereishis) "va'Yitzer" (by Beheimah) "va'Yitzer (by Adam).

(b)The problem with this from the Pasuk there "va'Yivra Elokim es ha'Taninim ha'Gedolim" - is why we do then learn a similar Gezeirah-Shavah ('B'ri'ah' from 'Yetzirah') with regard to the large sea creatures (incorporating all fish [yet which Rebbi Meir does not include in his ruling]).

(c)We refute the suggestion that we learn 'Yetzirah' from 'Yetzirah', (but not 'B'ri'ah' from 'Yetzirah') from Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who says 'Zu hi Shiyvah, Zu hi Bi'ah' (in connection with Tzara'as Batim [which means that we learn a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from words that are similar in meaning (even if they are not identical]).

(d)In fact, we can query Rav Yehudah without Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael - since we can learn Taninim from Adam by means of the Gezeirah-Shavah 'B'ri'ah' 'B'ri'ah'.

9)

(a)The suggestion that 'B'ri'ah' by Adam comes for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', and 'Yetzirah' is to render it Mufneh (superfluous) - will explain why Rebbi Meir confines his D'rashah to animals ... , by which the Torah writes 'Yetzirah' (and precludes Taninim).

(b)We refute this suggestion however - by countering that there is nothing to indicate not learning the opposite (that 'Yetzirah' by Adam comes for the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', and 'B'ri'ah' to render it Mufneh) in which case Rebbi Meir would have included Taninim and precluded animals ... .

(c)We therefore conclude that 'Yetzirah' is Mufneh both by Adam and by animals ... (where it is superfluous, since the Torah has already written "Vaya'as Elokim es Chaise ha'Aretz"), whereas 'B'ri'ah' is only Mufneh by Adam, but not by Taninim (where it is not). We query this however - in that the same Pasuk that renders 'Yetzirah' Mufneh by animals ("va'Ya'as Elokim ... ") inserts "ve'es Kol Remes ha'Adamah", and "Remes" incorporates Taninim, challenging our conclusion.

(d)And we answer that "Remes" does not in fact, incorporate Taninim - since Taninim are sea creatures, and the Torah specifically writes there "Remes ha'Adamah".

10)

(a)To explain our answer, we now categorize 'Gezeirah-Shavah'. Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules that a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' which is ...

1. ... not Mufneh at all - 'Ein Lemeidin'.

2. ... Mufneh on both sides - 'Lemeidin ve'Ein Mashivin'.

(b)The Rabbanan hold that a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that is Mufneh on only one side is 'Lemeidin u'Mashivin'; whereas Rebbi Yishmael holds 'Lemeidin ve'Ein Mashivin' (like one that is Mufneh on both sides).

(c)According to Rebbi Yishmael, the difference between 'Mufneh mi'Tzad Echad' and 'Mufneh mi'Shenei Tzedadin' - is manifest in a case where there is a choice, such as the one currently under discussion (where one can learn either Beheimah ... or Taninim from Adam, or both) - in which case we opt to learn the one which is Mufneh on both sides, and not the one that is Mufneh on only one side ...

(d)... which finally explains why Rebbi Meir - learns Beheimah from Adam, regarding Tum'as Leidah, but not Taninim.