1)

(a)Rabah bar Shiloh citing Rav Masna Amar Shmuel, recorded a case where the Chachamim attributed a Shilya to the V'lad which preceded it by ten days, adding that - the Din of Tolin (attributing the Shilya') applies only where the Shilya follows the V'lad, but where it precedes it, we always suspect that there is another V'lad.

(b)When, citing Rebbi Yochanan, Rabah bar bar Chanah referred to a case where they attributed a Shilya to the V'lad that had preceded it by twenty-three days, Rav Yosef commented that- he (Rabah bar bar Chanah) had told him twenty-four.

(c)He made a similar comment to Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Avira citing Rebbi Yochanan, who reported a case where the second V'lad was born ...

1. ... thirty-three days after the first one, according to Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Avira, ...

2. ... thirty-four, according to Rav Yosef.

(d)According to those who hold that a woman can give birth before nine months (bearing in mind that an eighth-month baby is a Nefel) - the first baby must have been born within a couple of days before the eighth month, and the second one, within a couple of days after the beginning of the ninth.

2)

(a)Based on a Machlokes in the fourth Perek, others hold that - a ninth-month baby cannot be born prematurely.

(b)And to explain Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Avira's case - they switch the circumstances with that of Rabah bar bar Chanah, so that the latter (Rabah bar bar Chanah, which we learned first) took place with two V'lados, and the former, with a V'lad and a Shilya.

(c)It doesn't matter that one baby preceded the other by twenty-three days, and was therefore born short of seven months - because even those who hold that a woman cannot give birth to a ninth-month baby before its time, they concede that to a seven-month baby, she can.

3)

(a)The most startling comment of all was that of Rav Avin bar Rav Menachem Ish K'far She'arim (or Beis-She'arim), who is quoted as having said that - he knew of a case where the second baby was born three months after the first one.

(b)What's more, he added, the two V'lados were sitting there in the very Beis-Hamedrash in which he was issuing his statement, and their names were - Yehudah and Chizkiyah, sons of Rebbi Chiya.

(c)To reconcile this with Mar, who said that a pregnant woman cannot become pregnant with a second V'lad - we explain that the twins were born of the same drop, which divided into two (even though we initially thought that it was still not feasible for the births to have taken place so far apart).

4)

(a)Rebbi Meir conceded that if one were to carry the Shilya to another room, the room would remain Tahor - because it would have melted and merged with the blood of the birth.

(b)He declares the room in which the Shilya emerged Tamei, because, as he points out - one cannot compare melting once (when it does not melt completely) to melting twice (after having been moved [when it does]).

(c)Rebbi Shimon (in our Mishnah), Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Yehudah - maintain that it must have melted completely before it even emerged.

5)

(a)Rav Papa, who was sitting behind Rav Bibi, both of whom were sitting in front of Rav Hamnuna, asked why Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah rules Tahor. Rav Papa asked this (despite the fact that Rebbi Shimon also gave his reason for the ruling ['Nimuk ha'V'lad ad she'Lo Yatza']) - because he did not understand why, even if it did melt, it should not be Metamei anyway, just like the Rekev and the Natzal (melted flesh that became liquefied) of a Meis.

(b)The Gemara answers that - Rebbi Shimon holds that all Tum'ah that mixes with a small Shi'ur of something Tahor, becomes Bateil.

(c)They laughed at Rav Papa when he added that this is also the reason of Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi - because it is so obvious.

(d)Rav Papa reacted to that - by citing the Pasuk that we are about to quote, which teaches us that a person should say his D'var Torah (however simple it may be), and not remain silent (since it may possibly lead to someone coming up with a good S'vara).

(e)We learn from the Pasuk in Mishlei ...

1. ... "Im Navalta, be'Hisnasei" that - someone who makes a fool of himself in his quest to learn will later become elevated (famous).

2. ... "ve'Im Zamosa, Yad le'Peh" that - if, on the other hand, he remains silent, he will later have to place his finger on his mouth, when people ask questions that he is unable to answer.

6)

(a)We conclude that Rebbi Shimon follows his own reasoning in a Beraisa which discusses a Tarvad (a spoonful) of Rekev (the dust of a corpse) into which a little earth falls. A spoonful of Rekev - is Metamei be'Ohel Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.

(b)The Chachamim rule there that even if a little earth is added to Rekev, it remains Tamei. Rebbi Shimon - declares it Tahor.

(c)When Rava heard the Rabbanan de'bei Rav ascribing Rebbi Shimon's reason to the fact that one speck of Rekev is bound to have become mixed between two specks of earth, thereby detracting from the Shi'ur of a Tarvad of Rekev, he countered that it is just as likely that - one specks of earth is bound to have become mixed between two specks of Rekev, thereby increasing the Shi'ur.

7)

(a)Rava therefore concludes that Rebbi Shimon compares the end of Rekev to its beginning, which is not Metamei if there is Gangilun - which means something in which the Rekev becomes Bateil.

(b)What Rava is therefore saying is - that just as to begin with, the Din of Rekev is confined to rot which contains nothing else, so too, once the Rekev has come into existence, it only retains the Din of Rekev as long as it is not mixed with anything else.

(c)The Din of the beginning of Rekev is based on a Beraisa, which defines a Meis that has Rekev and one that does not. To fall under the category of a Meis she'Yesh bo Rekev, the corpse must be buried - naked either in a marble coffin or on a marble floor.

(d)And even then, it is only a Meis that died naturally that has the Din of Rekev - but not one that was killed (whose blood has diminished, and a Meis that has diminished is not subject to Rekev [as we learned in Nazir]).

8)

(a)The Beraisa also learns that if a spoonful of Rekev is scattered around the room, the room is Tamei. Rebbi Shimon - declares it Tahor.

(b)We need to learn both Machlokos, because had the Tana only presented ...

1. ... the first case (M'lo Tarvad Rekev she'Nafal le'Tocho Afar), we would have thought that - the Rabbanan will agree in the second case (M'lo Tarvad Rekev she'Nispazer ba'Bayis) that - it is Tahor, because since the specks of Rekev are scattered, it seems as if each piece of roof is Ma'ahil on less than a Shi'ur Rekev in one place.

2. ... the second case, we would have thought that Rebbi Shimon restricts his ruling to that case, since there is not a Shi'ur Rekev in one place (as we just explained), but in the first case, he will agree that it is Tamei.

(c)Another Beraisa cites the Tana Kama, who declares Tamei a spoonful-plus of earth from a Beis ha'Kevaros. Alternatively, 'Afar Beis-ha'Kevaros' might mean - a spoonful-plus of rot of a corpse that was buried not according to the specifications that render it Rekev (which is equivalent to a spoonful of pure Rekev [see Tosfos DH 'M'lo Tarvad ve'Od').

(d)Also here - Rebbi Shimon declares it Tahor.

9)

(a)We refute Rava's reason of Sofo ki'Techilaso however, since it applies to a Meis, but not to a Shilya. Rebbi Yochanan therefore ascribes Rebbi Shimon's ruling by Shilya to the fact that - there is a majority of blood from the birth, in which the blood of the melted Shilya is Bateil.

(b)Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov in a Beraisa, rules that if a Beheimah Gasah that has not previously given birth, miscarries a cake of blood, it (the cake of blood) must be buried. And the V'lad that is born after it - is not considered a B'chor.

(c)The problem with Rebbi Chiya, who learns that the cake of blood is not Metamei be'Maga or be'Masa is that - if that is so (since it is not considered a V'lad), why does it require burial.

(d)And we answer that - really it is not considered a V'lad, and the burial is in order to publicize the fact that it is Patur from Bechorah.

10)

(a)If, as we just explained, the mother is Patur from Bechorah, it must mean that - the cake of blood is a proper V'lad.

(b)If it is a V'lad, then we need to understand why Rebbi Chiya learns that it is not Metamei. Rebbi Yochanan explains that it is - because it is Bateil in the majority of blood.

(c)The reason that we cited this Beraisa in the first place is - to demonstrate that Rebbi Yochanan, who specifically said that Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov concur regarding the Din of Bitul be'Rov, follows his reason there as well.

11)

(a)Rebbi Ami Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that - although Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah renders the Shilya Tahor, he agrees that the mother of the Shilya, is Tamei Leidah.

(b)That old man learns from the Pasuk "Ishah ki Sazri'a ve'Yaldah Zachar" that - even though the mother only gave birth to something that is similar to what was seeded (a V'lad that melted like Zera) she is Tamei (like Rebbi Yochanan).

12)

(a)Resh Lakish stated that a Sh'fir (a fetus) that one mixed with its own water - becomes Tahor ...

(b)... like a Meis that has lost its form (in the way that a burnt corpse falls apart).