1)

(a)Rava now proves from the fact that Rebbi Shimon includes Yotzei Dofen in the list of those that must be taken down from the Mizbe'ach. He assumes that the Tana is talking about - a Yotzei Dofen of Kodshim (a proof for Rebbi Yochanan).

(b)We counter Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Nasan's suggestion that Rebbi Shimon is talking about a B'chor (and not about other Kodshim), because we already know that a B'chor Yotzei Dofen is considered Chulin (and must therefore be taken down from the Mizbe'ach, from the Pasuk "Peter Rechem" (and we do not therefore need to learn it from "Zos").

(c)Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Nasan retorts - that, by the same token, why do we need "Zos" to preclude a Yotzei Dofen of Kodshim, since we already know it from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Imo" "Imo" (as we learned earlier).

(d)We substantiate Rava's proof - in that whereas we need two Pesukim by a Yotzei Dofen of Kodshim, one for a baby born to a Chulin animal, the other for a baby born to an animal of Kodshim (but not by B'chor).

2)

(a)According to our text, we conclude 've'ka'Savar V'lados Kodshim be'Havayasan Hein Kedoshim' - meaning that this Tana holds that V'lados Kodshim become Kadosh only from the moment that they are born.

(b)We reject it however - on the grounds that if we need a Pasuk to preclude V'lados Kodshim according to those who hold that they are Kadosh from when they are born, how much more so according to those who hold that they become Kadosh already when they are formed ('mi'Sha'as Yetzirah hein Kedoshim' (See also Tosfos DH 'Kasavar').

3)

(a)We support Rava's interpretation from Rove'a, Nirva, Muktzah, Ne'evad and Kil'ayim (based on the Beraisa [commenting on the Pasuk in Vayikra "min ha'Beheimah, min ha'Bakar u'min ha'Tzon"). The Tana precludes from ...

1. ... "min ha'Beheimah - Rove'a and Nirva (from being declared Hekdesh to go on the Mizbe'ach].

2. ... "min ha'Bakar" - Ne'evad.

3. ... "min ha'Tzon" - Muktzah.

4. ... the 'Vav' that precedes "min ha'Tzon" - Noge'ach (an animal that gored and killed a human-being).

(b)And we support it further from Rebbi Shimon's insertion of Kil'ayim in the list, based on the Pasuk in Emor "Shor O Kesev O Eiz". From "Shor" we preclude Kil'ayim (in which case, we are faced with the same problem (why we then need "Zos" to preclude it).

(c)Whilst from "O Eiz" we preclude 'Nidmeh' - which is a baby animal that resembles a lamb, even though both its parents are goats; whereas Kil'ayim is a cross between a sheep and a goat.

(d)We have now proved - that Rebbi Shimon too, disqualifies a Yotzei Dofen of Kodshim.

4)

(a)The Tana Kama considers a woman who had Koshi the three days preceding the birth of a Yotzei Dofen - to be a Yoledes be'Zov - because it is only a Koshi that is caused by the impending birth (Leidah) that is Metaher from Zivus, and the birth of a Yotzei Dofen does not fall under the category of 'Leidah'.

(b)Rebbi Shimon says - that she is not a Yoledes be'Zov ...

(c)... because he considers it a Leidah.

(d)'ve'Dam ha'Yotzei mi'Sham Tamei' (which will be explained shortly). Rebbi Shimon declares her Tahor.

5)

(a)We try to establish the Seifa where the V'lad was a Yotzei Dofen, but where the blood emerged from the womb (in which case it is the blood of Zivus), and the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon is merely a repetition of the Machlokes in the Reisha - whether a Yotzei Dofen is considered a Leidah or not.

(b)Besides the futility of repeating the same Machlokes again, Rav Yosef also asks - that 'Dam ha'Yotzei mi'Sham' implies that the blood flows from the same location as the baby.

(c)He therefore concludes that the Tana is indeed speaking when both the baby and the blood emerged from the location of the incision, and the basis of the Machlokes is - whether the blood is Tamei (even though it is not considered a sighting), because it touched the womb (which in its capacity as the source of Tum'ah, is intrinsically Tamei [the Rabbanan]) or not (Rebbi Shimon).

(d)According to the Rabbanan, the Yoledes who is not a Zavah - is however, a Sheini le'Tum'ah, and is Tamei for one day, for having touched blood which touched the source.

6)

(a)In a case of Yotzei Dofen, where Dam Zivus flows from the womb and she gives birth following three days of Koshi - Rebbi Shimon holds that she is not a Yoledes be'Zov (just as she would not be by a regular birth).

(b)When Resh Lakish says that those who declare the blood Tamei, declare the woman Tamei too, he means - that she is Tamei for seven days (even if the blood did not flow via the womb [see Seifer 'Eizehu Mekoman').

(c)Rebbi Yochanan holds - that she is Tamei for only one day (as we explained).

(d)Rebbi Yochanan follows his own reasoning elsewhere, where in the name of Rebbi Shimon, he learns from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "ve'Ish asher Yishkav es Ishah Davah ve'Gilah es Ervasah, es Mekorah He'erah" - that a woman is only Tamei (for seven days) if the blood flows from her womb (see Tosfos DH 've'Azda').

7)

(a)Resh Lakish citing Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah says that if a woman's uterus detaches itself from her body and falls on the ground - it is Metamei.

(b)And he learns this from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "Ya'an His'hapech Nechushtech va'Tegali Ervasech"- since "Nechuchtech" refers to the Mekor, which the Pasuk refers to as 'Ervah', even after it has fallen on the ground.

(c)Someone who touches it is Tamei - for one day, because the Pasuk in Metzora specifically writes "Dam" with regard to being Metamei for seven days (and the uterus is Basar, not Dam).

(d)Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a holds - like the Chachamim who hold 'M'kor, Mekomo Tamei'.

8)

(a)When Rebbi Yochanan says that if the source exudes two entities that resembles two drops of pearls, the woman is Tamei - he is referring to two spots of white blood.

(b)He cannot be referring to a seven-day Tum'ah - because Chazal have specifically confined Nidus to the five different shades of red blood (as we have already learned [and he too holds like the Chachamim]).

(c)Rebbi Yochanan refers specifically to two drops - which must have come from the M'kor. If however, only one drop emerges - then we assume that it came from the sides and not from the M'kor (and is therefore Tahor).

9)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that all women are Tamei once the blood reaches the 'Beis ha'Chitzon'. Rebbi Yochanan objects to Resh Lakish's explanation (that this refers to the part of the uterus which becomes visible in a little girl when she is seated) - on the grounds that that is considered revealed even as regards a Sheretz touching it (and certainly as regards Tum'as Nidah) ...

(b)... since Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim (whatever is not visible from the outside) is not subject to Tum'as Sheretz (even though it is subject to Nidus).

(c)Rebbi Yochanan therefore defines it as 'ad Bein ha'Shinayim' - which means 'warts on the walls of the inner part of the womb'.

(d)We ask whether 'ad' is inclusive or exclusive, and we answer with a Beraisa - which defines it as exclusive (meaning that 'Bein ha'Shinayim itself is not considered 'Beis ha'Chitzon' (and is Tahor).

(e)The Beraisa defines Bein ha'Shinayim as 'Makom Dishah', which Rav Yehudah explains to mean - that the Bein ha'Shinayim extends as far as the Eiver Tashmish penetrates (see Seifer Eizehu Mekoman.

10)

(a)With regard to the Pasuk in Metzora (in connection with a Nidah) "Dam Yih'yeh Zovah bi'Vesarah", the Beraisa learns from ...

1. ... "bi'Vesarah" - that a Nidah is Tamei even if the blood is still inside her body.

2. ... "Zovah" - that the same Din applies to a Zavah (even though the Pasuk is talking exclusively about a Nidah), and from ...

3. ... "Yih'yeh" - that it even extends to a Poletes (a woman who exudes the Zera inside her body).

(b)Rebbi Shimon disagrees. He learns from the fact that the Torah (in Metzora) compares a Nidah to the man who has relations with her - that a Poletes is only Metamei once the Zera leaves her body (as is the Din with regard to him).

(c)We query this however, from Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, who discusses the Pasuk in Metzora (in connection with a man who is Bo'el a woman) "ve'Rachatzu ba'Mayim ve'Tam'u ad ha'Arev", and who has a problem in defining what it is coming to teach us. We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... there "ve'Ish ki Seitzei mimenu Shichvas-Zera ... " - that a man who touches Zera is Tamei.

2. ... in Emor O Ish asher Teitzei mimenu Shichvas-Zera" - that a woman is too.

(d)Rebbi Shimon ultimately learns from the Pasuk - that the woman is Tamei from the Be'ilah itself, even though it is Tum'as Beis ha'Setarim (which would not render a man who touched it Tamei).

11)

(a)Rebbi Shimon now appears to be contradicting himself - since in the first Beraisa he learns the woman from her Bo'el, whereas in the second Beraisa, he does not.

(b)To resolve the discrepancy, we draw a distinction between a Meshameshes - which Rebbi Shimon learns from the Bo'el, and a Poletes, which he does not.

12)

(a)We ask that if she ...

1. ... is Poletes, she must have first been Meshamesh, in which case she ought to be Tamei anyway. And we answer - by establishing the Beraisa where she was initially Tamei, but where she had already Toveled by the time she exuded the Zera.

2. ... Toveled, then one day will not suffice to render her Tahor. In fact - she will require three days, as we can learn from Rava ...

(b)... who taught that, following Tashmish, a woman is not permitted to eat Terumah for three days because it is impossible for her not to exude Zera during that period.

(c)The problem with this is - that 'Dayah ke'Bo'alah' is nolonger applicable, seeing as after three days, the Zera loses its potency, and will no longer render her Tamei,

(d)And we answer - that it is possible to avoid being Tamei for three days, if she remains in bed (and is Toveled together with her bed) ...

(e)... in which case, Rava must be speaking where she is walking around.

13)

(a)The problem with Rava who said 'Kol Sheloshah Yamim ... she'I Efshar lah she'Lo Tiflot' is - that this implies that she is Vaday Tamei throughout this time-period. Why do do we not take into account the possibility that perhaps she exuded all the Zera from her body and is therefore Tahor.

(b)Nor can he have meant that we only suspect that some Zera remains inside her - because then he ought to have said 'Chaishinan Shema Nishtayer ... '.

(c)We therefore establish Rava too, where they Toveled her together with her bed. And we reconcile him with Rebbi Shimon - by establishing the former where she turned over, in which case, she is bound to exude Zera throughout the three days (and remains forbidden to eat T'rumah), and the latter where she remained still without turning over at all (in which case, Tevilah will permit her to eat T'rumah at nightfall, since the Zera did not emerge from her body).

(d)Alternatively, we might explain 'Ka'an be'Mis'hapeches' of Rava to mean - that she turned over during Tashmish, so that all the Zera did not enter her womb simultaneously (which caused her to exude throughout the three days).

(e)When we conclude that Rava is referring to the Pasuk "ve'Rachatzu ba'Mayim, ve'Tam'u ad ha'Arev", we mean - that he made his statement with reference to the Pasuk (which permits her to eat T'rumah the same night), which he qualified, confining it to where the woman did not turn over, because if she did, she will remain forbidden to eat T'rumah for three days.