1)

(a)Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk in Emor (in connection with Tum'as Meis) "le'Chol Tum'aso" that - the Basar of a corpse is Metamei even if it is dry.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan learns the same thing from the Pasuk in Chukas "O be'Etzem Adam" - by treating it as a Hekesh, which comes to compare (B'sar) Adam to Etzem, which is always dry.

(c)The difference between the two sources is - where it is so dry that it crumbles, which will be Tahor according to Rebbi Yochanan, since bones do not generally crumble, but Tamei according to Resh Lakish.

(d)We query Resh Lakish from a Beraisa, which specifically declares Tahor Basar ha'Meis she'Hufrach. Resh Lakish however explains that - the Beraisa is speaking where the Basar has already broken up (which is what she'Hufrach means, and not just where it is merely ready to do so, which is how he is speaking).

2)

(a)We query both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish from another Beraisa, which rules that the teeth, the hair and the nails of a corpse - are the sole exceptions to the rule that every part of a Meis is Metamei.

(b)Even they will be Metamei however - as long as they are still attached to the Meis.

(c)The problem from there is - why according to both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, we do not include teeth in Tum'as Meis, irrespective of whether we learn it from the Pasuk or from the Hekesh (since teeth are similar to bones?

3)

(a)To answer the Kashya, Rav Ada bar Ahavah learns from bones that only what is created with a person is Metamei (to preclude teeth, which grow only later). The problem with this explanation however, is that - if that is so, there is no reason not to include hair and nails (which are created together with him) in Tum'as Meis.

(b)So in order to incorporate hair and nails to the list of things that are precluded, Rav Ada bar Ahavah adds that - like bones, only parts of the body that will not re-grow once they are severed are compared to them, to preclude hair and nails, which will.

4)

(a)We query Rav Ada bar Ahavah's answer however, from two Mishnahs in Chulin. Rebbi Meir there, considers a Geludah (an animal whose skin peeled off because of work or as the result of boils) Kasher - because the skin will re-grow.

(b)The Rabbanan nevertheless declare it a T'reifah (not because it will not re-grow, but) - because in the meantime (the bacteria in) the air will kill it.

(c)Another Mishnah in Chulin compares the skin of a human to his flesh (even though it will not re-grow, as we just proved). To resolve the Kashya on Rav Ada bar Ahavah, we therefore cite Ula, who rules that human skin is indeed Tahor min ha'Torah, and the reason that the Rabbanan decreed Tum'ah on it is - to prevent a person from taking the skin of a parent, and using it to manufacture a carpet (bearing in mind that people of that time tended to distance themselves from Tum'ah [see also Ritva]).

(d)In the second Lashon, we maintain that human skin does not re-grow (which is why the Rabbanan classify a Geludah as T'reifah); and the reason that Rebbi Meir declares it Kasher is - because the top layer of flesh becomes hard and protects the animal like skin.

5)

(a)The problem with Ula's statement is that - seeing as human skin does not re-grow, there is no reason why it should not be Tamei d'Oraysa.

(b)We therefore apply it to the Seifa of the latter Mishnah - where the Tana rules that human skin that has been tanned or walked on remains Tamei (as opposed to tanned animal skins, which are Tahor because they have lost their original identity).

(c)And that is where Ula says that - its Tum'ah is only mi'de'Rabbanan ... .

(d)Mar bar Rav Ashi resolves Rav Ada bar Ahavah's ruling with the fact that Basar Adam too, re-grows - by differentiating between hair and nails (where the re-growth is indiscernible) and skin (which is marked when it re-grows.

6)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Metzora "Zovo Tamei hu" that - Zivus is Tamei (like the Zav himself).

(b)We query the need for this D'rashah, since it has an inborn Kal-va'Chomer - in that if it renders the Zav Tamei, then it should certainly be Tamei itself.

(c)And we reply by citing a precedent - the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach (which is not Tamei, even though it renders Tamei those who handle it).

7)

(a)We ask that perhaps Zivus is only Metamei be'Maga, but not be'Masa - like a Sheretz.

(b)And we answer that we would not need a Pasuk for Maga - because it cannot be worse than Shichvas-Zera, which is Metamei be'Maga.

(c)Perhaps, we persist, we need "Zovo" to teach us that Maga is Metamei Adam to be Metamei Begadim. Otherwise, Masa would be Metamei Adam and Begadim, but Maga, only Adam - like a Neveilah.

(d)So we finally quote Acherim in a Beraisa, who learn from the Pasuk there "ha'Zav es Zovo la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah" - that by Zivus, like by a Zav, the Torah draws no distinction between Maga and Masa (regarding Adam and Begadim).

8)

(a)Rav Yehudah from Diskarta explains that we need "Zovo Tamei Hu" - to prevent us from learning from Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach (like we explained earlier).

(b)Whereas from "ve'ha'Zav es Zovo" we learn - that a Zav is Tamei already after two Re'iyos.

(c)Nevertheless - now that we know the basic Din of Tum'as Maga and Masa by Zivus, we can learn the comparison of Maga to Masa regarding Adam and Begadim, from there as well.

9)

(a)In the Pasuk in Metzora "ve'Chi Yarok ha'Zav ba'Tahor ... Vetamei ad ha"Erev", the Beraisa learns from ...

1. ... the phrase "ve'Chi Yarok ha'Zav" that - the spit of a Zav is Tamei.

2. ... the word "ba'Tahor that - it is Metamei only via contact.

3. ... the 'Vav' at the beginning of "ve'Chi Yarok" that - the Tum'ah extends to Kicho ve'Ni'o (different kinds of phlegm) and mucus from the nose.

(b)We suggested earlier that the spit of a Zav should be Metamei even without physical contact, due to the Gezeirah-Shavah "Rok" "Rok" - from the spit of a Yevamah, which does not need to touch the Yavam.

(c)And we suggest that perhaps the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yarok" should be confined to Maga, but not extend to Masa - like Sheretz (as we learned with regard to Zivus).

(d)Resh Lakish answers by quoting Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who learns from the Pasuk "ba'Tahor" (in the Pasuk that we just cited "ve'Chi Yarok ha'Zav ba'Tahor") that - the Tahor becomes Tamei, if the spit rests on whatever he is holding in his hand (which is Masa).

10)

(a)Still, we ask, perhaps, based on Neveilah, the Pasuk differentiates between the Maga of the spit and the Masa (with regard to Adam and Begadim, like we asked earlier regarding Zivus). Both Resh Lakish and Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael answer this based on the word "ba'Tahor" - from which they now Darshen that what is Tahor elsewhere (Maga of Neveilah with regard to Begadim) is Tamei by Zav.

(b)The Pasuk cannot be coming to be Metamei the spit be'Maga (even regarding Adam), to preclude from Tum'as Sheretz, which is not - because that we would have already known had the Pasuk written 'ba'Adam' (and not "ba'Tahor"). "ba'Tahor" has connotations of both previous D'rashos (Masa from the extra 'Beis') and Begadim of Maga from the word "Tahor".

11)

(a)Rav interprets Mei ha'Af (that we just included from "ve'Chi Yarok") as the mucus that the Zav emits via his mouth, and the reason that it is then Tamei is - because it is impossible for it not to have absorbed some drops of spit along the way.

(b)He learns like that - because in his opinion, the mucus from the nose is not one of the Ma'ayanos ha'Zav, whereas...

(c)... Rebbi Yochanan interprets it as the Mucus that comes directly from the Zav's nose - because he holds that it is.

12)

(a)We query Rav from another statement of his. Elsewhere, he says that if someone wants to become blind, then he only needs to let a Nochri paint his eye - since all the Nochri then needs to do is to add a little poison to achieve this.

(b)Levi says - the same thing, only instead of referring to the Yisrael bringing on his own blindness, he refers to him as bringing on his own death.

(c)Rav does not learn like Levi - because he holds that it is possible to subsequently avoid death, by drawing the poison into one's mouth (like one does with the mucus from one's nose).

(d)Nevertheless, the Beraisa did not include the tears, in a case where (like the mucus from the nose), the Zav draws them into his mouth - because it is only with the poison that it is possible to do this, but not with the actual tears.

13)

(a)The Beraisa lists nine liquids of a Zav ...

1. ... his perspiration, his pus and his excrement - are Tahor.

2. ... his tears, the blood of his wounds and the milk of a Zavah - are Metamei Ochel u'Mashkeh with a Shi'ur Revi'is.

3. ... his Zivus, his spit and his urine - are Metamei Tum'ah Chamurah (Letamei Adam Letamei Begadim).

(b)The Tana seems to have omitted - Mei ha'Af from the list.

(c)The problem according to Rebbi Yochanan is - why the Tana omits it.

(d)There is no problem according to Rav however - since the Tana will have omitted it because it depends from where it emerges as to whether it is Tamei or not, as we explained (whereas all the cases listed are clear-cut).

14)

(a)We answer the Kashya by noting that the Tana also seems to have omitted Kicho ve'Ni'o (which the Beraisa specifically included above). Clearly, this is because - it is included in spit (which is its source, and which the Tana has already listed. In that case, we can say the same for Mei ha'Af (whose source also lies in Rok).

(b)We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Tehilim - "vaTashkeimo bi'Dema'os Shalish" that - tears are considered a beverage.

2. ... in Balak - "ve'Dam Chalalim Yishteh" that - the blood of a wound is considered a beverage too (based on the S'vara that it makes no difference, in this regard, whether one kills a person completely or one half kills him).

3. ... in Balak (in connection with Yael and Sisra) "va'Tiftach es Nod he'Chalav va'Tashkeihu" that - milk is also considered a beverage.

(c)We object to the Beraisa, which learns the urine of a Zav from the juxtaposition of "v'Zos" to "Zovo Tamei" on the grounds that - we ought to have known it even without the Pasuk, from his spit, which comes from a source that is Tahor (how much more so his urine, which comes from a source that is Tamei).

(d)And we answer by citing the precedent of blood that flows from the Amah of a Zav, which is Tahor, even though it flows from a source of Tum'ah.