1)

(a)Beis Shamai in our Mishnah, declare Tahor the blood of a Nochris and the Dam Tohar of a Metzora'as (unlike the latter's Ma'ayanos [her urine and her spit]). Beis Hillel however - compare her blood to her Ma'ayanos ...

(b)... which are Metamei when they are wet but not when they are dry.

(c)Beis Shamai do however, compare the blood of a Yoledes who has not yet Toveled to her Ma'ayanos). According to Beis Hillel - it is Metamei both wet and dry.

(d)Even Beis Shamai agree that the blood of a Yoledes be'Zov - is Metamei both wet and dry.

2)

(a)The basis of the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel regarding the blood of a Yoledes is - whether it is the eighth day and onwards that causes her days of Tohar to come into effect (Beis Shamai), or only in conjunction with Tevilah (Beis Hillel). Consequently, as long as she has not Toveled, Beis Hillel considers her blood (both wet and dry) Tamei d'Oraysa, whereas Beis Shamai maintains that, from the eighth (or the fifteenth) day and onwards, it is Tamei only mi'de'Rabbanan.

(b)She is not Tamei min ha'Torah on account of her Ma'ayan - since, unlike her spit and her urine, her blood does not gather before emerging (as we explained earlier).

(c)The Rabbanan issued a decree in this case - from after seven (or fourteen) days on account of before.

(d)And they did not render it Tamei even when it is dry - as a reminder not to burn Terumah and Kodshim on account of it.

3)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Metzora "Daber el B'nei Yisrael, Ish Ish ki Yih'yeh Zav" that - B'nei Yisrael are Metamei be'Zivus, but not Nochrim.

(b)Chazal decreed Zivus on all Nochrim - to discourage Jewish children from going to visit them (and being immoral abused by them).

4)

(a)According to Beis Shamai, the Rabbanan did not decree on the blood of a Nochris ...

1. ... both wet and dry - because that would put it on a par with the Din d'Oraysa of a Yisre'elis, with the result that people might come to burn Terumah and Kodshim on account of it.

2. ... at least when it is wet - because that would be creating a division which one might come to emulate by d'Oraysos (to be Metaher Terumah that has been touched by the dry blood of a Yisre'elis).

(b)They were not afraid when they decreed on her spit and urine (wet and dry) that people might come to burn Terumah and Kodshim on account of it however - because they assumed that specifically omitting her blood from the decree would be sufficient to remind people that a Nochris is only Metamei mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c)They chose to decree on the latter and leave her blood Tahor, and not the other way round - because her blood is the least common of the three.

(d)According to Beis Hillel on the other hand, the Chachamim decreed on the blood of a Nochris, rendering it Tamei when it is wet (like her spit and urine). They were not afraid that people might come to burn Terumah and Kodshim on account of it - because they did not decree on it when it is dry (even though that of a Yisre'elis is [nor were they afraid that people might declare Tahor the dry blood of a Yisre'elis. As for the Dam Tohar of a Metzora'as we will learn Beis Hillel reason in the Sugya]).

5)

(a)Rava teaches us that Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai do not argue over the Keri and the Zivus of a Nochri. They both agree that ...

1. ... his Zivus - is Tamei, and that ...

2. ... his Keri - is Tahor.

(b)The Chachamim did not decree by his Keri - in order to remind us that it is only mi'de'Rabbanan (to prevent people from burning Terumah and Kodshim on account of it).

(c)They chose to decree by his Zivus - which comes naturally, rather than by his Keri - which comes through his actions.

(d)It would not have been possible to forbid his Keri as well, and confine their decree to his Zivus when it is wet (leaving dry Zivus Tahor to remind us that it is only mi'de'Rabbanan) - because the Zivus of a Yisrael too is only Metamei when it is wet. They had no choice therefore, but to leave either Zivus or Keri completely out of the decree.

6)

(a)We try to support Rava from a Beraisa, which declares ...

1. ... the Zera of a Yisrael that a Nochris exudes - Tamei.

2. ... the Zera of a Nochri that a Yisre'elis exudes - Tahor.

(b)This appears to support Rava - because Tahor implies Tahor even mi'de'Rabbanan.

(c)We refute the proof however - by interpreting it to mean Tahor min ha'Torah, but Tamei mi'de'Rabbanan.

7)

(a)And we cite another Beraisa in support of Rava, which declares Tamei the Zera of a Yisrael everywhere and that of a Nochri Tahor everywhere - which implies even in the stomach of a Nochris and of a Yisre'elis, respectively.

(b)The Tana declares the Zera of a Nochri Tamei however - if it appears together with his urine (on which the Rabbanan decreed [see Seifer Eizehu Mekoman]).

(c)This a proof for Rava - because now that the Tana adds the Din of urine which is mi'de'Rabbanan, Tahor by his Zera must also mean mi'de'Rabbanan.

8)

(a)Rav Papa asked what the Din will be if a Nochris exudes the Zera of a Yisrael. We cannot resolve his She'eilah from the previous Beraisa, which specifically declares it Tamei - because the Beraisa is referring to within three days, whereas Rav Papa is referring to after three days.

(b)The basis of his She'eilah is whether, or not, to compare it to the Zera of a Yisrael inside a Yisre'eilis, which becomes Tahor after three days - because the heat inside the body causes it to become putrid.

(c)The Zera of a Yisrael when it is inside a Nochris might ...

1. ... be different than when it is inside a Yisrael - because, unlike a Yisre'elis, a Nochris is not constantly worried about performing Mitzvos (which is perhaps the cause of the heat inside the body of a Yisre'elis).

2. ... be the same as when it is inside a Yisrael - because to counter that, the Nochris eats insects (which a Yisre'elis does not).

(d)The outcome of Rav Papa's She'eilah is - Teiku.

9)

(a)Rebbi Yitzchak (according to Beis Hillel) learns from the Pasuk (in connection with Zav) ...

1. ... "la'Zachar" - to include the Ma'ayanos of a Metzora.

2. ... "ve'la'Nekeivah" - to include those of a Metzora'as ...

(b)... with reference to her blood ...

(c)... not to her spit and urine - which we learn from those of a Metzora (which is exactly the same in all respects).

(d)Beis Shamai disagree with this D'rashah - because, they maintain, we cannot learn Metzora'as from Metzora in this regard (as we will now explain).

10)

(a)Beis Shamai decline to learn the Ma'ayanos of a Metzora'as from those of Metzora because of two Chumros of the latter over the former. One of them is that a Metzora requires Peri'ah and Perimah - not cutting his hair and tearing his clothes, respectively, whereas a Metzora'as does not.

(b)The second Chumra is that - whereas a Metzora is forbidden to indulge in Tashmish, a Metzora'as is not.

(c)Beis Hillel counter that by learning Metzora from Metzora'as (who has no independent Chumros), leaving "la'Zachar" to Darshen Ma'ayanos, and since, having just learned it from Metzora'as, we do not need a Pasuk for that, we learn Dam Metzora'as from it (Im Eino Inyan).

(d)Beis Shamai argue that we cannot learn Metzora from Metzora'as either, because a Nekeivah (Zavah, which the basic Pasuk is talking about) is Tamei be'Oneis, whilst a Zachar is not. Beis Hillel reject this argument however on the grounds that - a Chumra of a Zavah over a Zav cannot affect the Limud of a Metzora'as from a Metzora.

11)

(a)Alternatively, Beis Shamai do not consider "le'Zachar" superfluous, because they learn from it that - a Katan is subject to the Din of Zivus.

(b)And they learn ...

1. ... that a Ketanah is subject to Zivus - from the 'Vav' in "ve'Ishah" (as we learned at the beginning of the Perek).

2. ... the Ma'ayanos of a Metzora - from those of a Metzora'as.

(c)Whereas Beis Hillel learns that a Katan is subject to Zivus - from the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Zav".

12)

(a)A Katan - is not subject to Tum'as Keri.

(b)Rav Yosef cites Resh Lakish, who asked whether someone who touches the first sighting of the Zivus of a Katan is Tamei or not. We might think that ...

1. ... it is not, because of the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Zav, va'asher Teitzei mimenu Shichvas-Zera" - comparing the first sighting of a Zav to Keri (to which a Zav is not subject, as we just learned).

2. ... it is - because it combines with the second and third sightings to make him a Zav (to which he is subject).

(c)And we resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, which specifically learns from the Pasuk "Zos Toras ha'Zav" that - the first sighting of a Zav Katan is Metamei, just like that of a Gadol.

13)

(a)Rav Yosef asks whether the first sighting of a Metzora is Metamei be'Masa (someone who carries it) or not. He asks specifically with regard to the first sighting of a Metzora, because ...

1. ... the first sighting of a Tahor person - is certainly not Metamei be'Masa.

2. ... the second sighting of a 'Tahor' person - certainly is.

(b)The basis of the She'eilah is - whether perhaps the source of Zivus is not considered a Ma'ayan (in which case it is Metamei be'Maga, but not be'Masa (like other first sightings).

(c)Rava tries to resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, which learns from "Zovo Tamei Hu", that Zivus is Metamei. It must be referring to Tum'as Masa - since it cannot be worse than Shichvas Zera, which is Metamei be'Maga.

(d)He rejects the straightforward explanation (declaring regular Zivus Tamei be'Masa) - since, seeing as it renders the Zav Metamei be'Masa, it is obvious that it itself is Metamei be'Masa too.

14)

(a)Rava therefore establishes the Beraisa - with regard to a Zav who is a Metzora, and it is coming to teach us that it is Tamei ...

(b)... even though the Zav is Metamei be'Masa (and even be'Ohel) anyway because of his Tzara'as (thereby dispensing with the Kal-va'Chomer).

(c)And the fact that we need a Pasuk to render his second sighting Tamei - proves that the first sighting was Tahor (in which case Zivus is not considered a Ma'ayan).

(d)Rav Yehudah from Diskarta refutes Rava's proof by establishing the Beraisa by regular Zivus - and as for Rava's Kal-va'Chomer, we have a precedent of something that makes others Tamei even though it itself is not, in the form of the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach - which renders the one who takes it out Tamei, though it itself is Tahor.