1)

(a)We just cited the Beraisa which learns that the urine of a Zav is Tamei from "Zovo Tamei ... ve'Zos ". From the following word "Hu", the Tana learns that blood from his mouth - as well as from his Amah are not Tamei.

(b)The obvious Kashya we can ask on these two Limudim - is how we know not to reverse them (to render his urine Tahor, and blood from his mouth and Amah, Tamei.

(c)Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai answers that it is preferable to compare the urine of a Zav to his spit, rather than to the blood from his mouth or from his Amah - because, like spit, urine gathers in the body before it emerges (whereas the blood from his mouth of from his Amah does not).

2)

(a)And we refute the initial comparison on the grounds that - the milk of a Zavah, which is Metamei Tum'as Mashkin, is not Metamei the Tum'ah Chamurah of a Zavah (even though it gathers before emerging).

(b)Rebbi Yochanan ... therefore adds to the fact that it gathers before emerging that - it must also be retractable (like his spit), precluding a Zavah's milk, which is not).

(c)We suggest that even the blood from the Zav's mouth and Amah should be Tamei, like the Zivus itself - which is Tamei even though it is not retractable (like his spit is).

(d)We refute this suggestion however - because Zivus is different, inasmuch as it the cause of the Zav's Tum'ah (which the other Ma'ayanos are not).

3)

(a)Resh Lakish rules that a Sheretz that has dried but its form has remained intact - is Tamei.

(b)Rebbi Zeira reconciles this with our Mishnah 'Metam'in Lachin ve'Ein Metam'in Yeveishin' - by confining the latter to a piece of Sheretz, but not to a whole one.

(c)And we support this answer with a Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon asks that - whereas the Pasuk in Shemini (in connection with Sheratzim) "Eileh ha'Temei'im lachem ... Kol ha'Noge'a *bahem*i>implies that only a whole Sheretz is Tamei, that of "asher Yipol Meihem be'Mosam Yitma" - implies that even part of one is.

(d)And he solves it - by establishing the former by a dry Sheretz, and the latter by one that is still moist.

4)

(a)Rava and Resh Lakish respectively, rule that the dead toads of Mechuza and burned Sheratzim, both of whose shapes have remained intact - are Tamei.

(b)We query this from a Beraisa which declares Tahor, olives on which they found a dead Sheretz and a ragged and torn cloak belonging to a Zav. The reason the Tana gives for declaring the former Tahor is - because even though the Sheretz may have fallen on to the olives when it was still alive, we always determine the situation according to the way we find it.

(c)We now reconcile the rulings of Rava and Resh Lakish with the Beraisa - by establishing the latter by a piece of Sheretz, whereas they are referring to a whole one.

(d)And we substantiate our answer - with the same Beraisa that we cited earlier (reconciling "bahem" with "meihem").

5)

(a)We have so far discussed the sources of Tum'ah with regard to the list of things in our Mishnah which are Metamei moist but not dry. We now learn from the Pasuk in Metzora "Rar Besaro" that - the Zivus of a Zav is Metamei moist but not once it has dried.

(b)Whereas from the Pasuk there "ki Yarok ha'Zav" we learn that - the same applies to his spit and two kinds of phlegm (and presumably also mucus from his nose).

(c)And we learn from the word/s ...

1. ... "be'Mosam (in the Pasukin in Shemini ("Kol ha'Noge'a bahem be'Mosam") that - a Sheretz too, is only Metamei as long as it is still moist and from ...

2. ... "Shichvas-Zera" (in the Pasuk in Metzora "ve'Ish ki Seitzei mimenu Shichvas-Zara") that - the Zera must be fit to seed (meaning that it must be moist [see Tosfos DH 'Shichvas-Zera']).

3. ... "ki Yamus" (in the Pasuk in Shemini "ve'Chi Yamus min ha'Beheimah") that - a Neveilah too, must be as moist as it was when it died.

6)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah asked, with regard to our Mishnah, which concedes that if the items in the latter case become moist once again when they are soaked in warm water for twenty-four hours, they become Tamei - whether the water needs to be warm right until the end or not.

(b)We resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, where Yehudah ben Nekusa specifically requires the beginning of the soaking to be in warm water, but not the end. This is a Kula - as the animal is Tahor if it does not regain its wetness, even if it would have done had the water remained warm.

(c)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that - the water must be warm until the end of the twenty-four hour period in order to be declared Tahor.

(d)Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah, declares Tahor the flesh of a corpse that will not regain its wetness when soaked in warm water for twenty-four hours. Shmuel comments on this that - although it is no longer Metamei bi'ke'Zayis like a regular Meis, it is Metamei however, by means of Rekev - a spoon-full of rotted flesh from a Meis, which is Metamei be'Maga, be'Masa and be'Ohel.

(e)And we substantiate Shmuel's statement - with a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yossi himself says exactly the same thing.

7)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that a Sheretz that is found in a Mavoy (which is considered a R'shus ha'Yachid regarding Safek Tum'ah [Tiferes Yisrael]) - is Metamei retroactively, Taharos that were performed there.

(b)The Taharos performed there however, are Tahor either if someone claims that he examined the Mavoy earlier and did not find any Sheratzim there - or 'ad Sha'as Kibud' (that only only Tahoros that were performed up to the time that it was last swept are Tahor, but not earlier).

(c)The equivalent Din regarding a Kesem that a woman finds on a undergarment will be that - it is Metamei retroactively up to the time that the husband claims that he examined the garment earlier and did not find a Kesem there, or up to the time that it was washed ('ad Sha'as Kibus').

(d)When the Tana Kama adds 'u'Metamei bein Lach bein Yavesh' - he is referring to both the Sheretz and the Kesem.

(e)Rebbi Shimon - agrees with the Tana Kama in the case of a dry Sheretz or Kesem, but not regarding a wet one, which cannot have been there for a long time. In such a case, he holds, one needs to assess for how long the stain might have remained wet.

8)

(a)We ask whether 'ad Sha'as Kibud' means that we assume that the sweeper examined the Mavoy - or that the sweeping itself constitutes a Chazakah that the Sheretz was not there at the time.

(b)One of the ramifications of the She'eilah is where the sweeper admitted that he did not examine the Mavoy whilst sweeping; rhe other - where the Sheretz was found in a hole, which the sweeper would have found had he examined the Mavoy. but which would not have been found through sweeping alone.

(c)We ask the same She'eilah with regard to the Seifa 'ad Sha'as Kibus' - whether it is Tahor until the examination that was made when the garment was washed or whether it is the washing itself that creates the Chazakah.

(d)Like in the previous She'eilah, there are two ramifications, either where whoever washed the stained garment admits that he did not examine it - or where the stain is found in the folds, which on the one hand, will be found when examined, but on the other, do not come out when washed.

9)

(a)And we resolve both She'eilos from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Meir permits the Mavoy and the garment from the time of Kibud and Kibus respectively - only on account of the Chazakah that the B'nos Yisrael examine their garments whilst washing them.

(b)In fact, he concludes, if no examination was made during the Kibud of the one or the Kibus of the other - it is Tamei.

(c)Rebbi Acha disagrees; he maintains that even if one failed to examine the garment the first time - it is possible to examine it by washing it, to see if the bloodstain becomes fainter. If it does, then we know that it came only after the first washing; whereas if it remains as it was, we know that it preceded it.

(d)According to Rebbi, even that is unnecessary - since one can tell the difference between a bloodstain was there already before the garment was washed - in which case the bloodstain penetrates the garment, and one that came only afterwards - which merely leaves a thick stain on it.

10)

(a)According to Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah, only Lach is Metamei retroactively as far as the last Bedikah, but not Yavesh. Rebbi Elazar qualifies Rebbi Shimon's ruling, confining it to Sheretz, but not to Kesem, where Rebbi Shimon will concede that a moist Kesem will be Metamei right back to the last Kibus - due to the possibility that it had actually dried, only some water had since fallen on it.

(b)We cannot say the same regarding a Sheretz - because water on a dry Sheretz causes it to fall apart.

11)

(a)Our Mishnah declares Tahor all Kesamim that come from Rekem - because its inhabitants were Nochrim, on whose Kesamim the Chachamim did not decree.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah disagrees - because he considers them Geirim who erred by not hiding their bloodstains in the way that B'nos Yisrael do.

(c)Everyone agrees that Kesamim that come from among the Nochrim are Tahor, but they argue over those that come from among Yisrael (or so it seems) and from among the Kutim, which Rebbi Meir declares Tamei - and the Chachamim Tahor, because they are not suspect on their Kesamim (which will be explained shortly).

12)

(a)We learn from the Tana, who permits Kesamim from among the Nochrim (without exception), that the Kesamim that come from Tarmud are included, from which Rebbi Yochanan extrapolates that - the Tarmudians are indeed Nochrim, and that one may therefore accept Geirim from there.

(b)This clashes with another statement of his however. Elsewhere, he and Savya stated - that one is forbidden to accept Geirim from Tarmud.

(c)We think that Rebbi Yochanan rules like our Mishnah - because it is a S'tam Mishnah, and Rebbi Yochanan always rules like a S'tam Mishnah.

(d)We reconcile the two statement of Rebbi Yochanan - by turning them into a Machlokes Amora'im as to whether Rebbi Yochanan does indeed always rule like a S'tam Mishnah or not.

13)

(a)The problem with the Chachamim in our Mishnah, who declare Tahor the Kesamim that come from among Yisrael and from among the Kutim, is that - if the Kesamim of B'nos Yisrael are Tahor, then whose Kesamim are Tamei?

(b)We therefore amend the wording of the Mishnah to read - 'mi'Bein Yisrael, Tamei; mi'Bein ha'Kutim, Rebbi Meir Metamei ... '.

(c)We initially suggest that Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim are arguing over whether the Kutim are Geirei Arayos (the Chachamim) or Geirei Emes (Rebbi Meir). 'Geirei Arayos' are - Nochrim whom Sancheriv exiled to Eretz Yisrael, and who converted after being attacked by lions, but who continued to worship idols in Eretz Yisrael. This opinion maintains that their conversion was not genuine, and that they therefore remained Nochrim.

(d)We reject that suggestion however - because then the Chachamim ought to have said so, and not attributed their reason to the fact that they are not suspect on their Kesamim'.

14)

(a)We therefore conclude that everybody holds that Kutim are Geirei Emes, and we amend our Mishnah once more to read that 'Kesamim that come from among either Yisrael or the Kutim - are Tamei'.

(b)And based on the new version, Rebbi Meir rules that Kesamim found in the streets of a town belonging to ...

1. ... Yisrael - are Tahor.

2. ... the Kutim - are Tamei ...

(c)... because the former hide their Kesamim, whereas the latter leave them lying around (since they are only mi'de'Rabbanan).

(d)The Chachamim disagree - with Rebbi Meir's final ruling. In his opinion, the Kutim are not suspect on their Kesamim, even though they are only mi'de'Rabbanan (see Tosfos DH 'Lo Nechsh'du').

15)

(a)The only place, besides in private rooms, where Kesamim of B'nos Yisrael are Tamei is - in the Beis ha'Teme'os (a room used by women during their days of Tum'ah).

(b)The Tana Kama declares the Beis ha'Teme'os of the Kutim Tamei Tum'as Ohel - because they tend to bury their miscarriages there.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah disagrees, inasmuch as, in his opinion - Kutim did not bury their Nefalim, but simply threw them down for a wild animal to drag away.

16)

(a)The Tana rules that - we believe a Kuti who claims that he did or did not bury a Nefel in a certain room.

(b)Besides believing him as to whether a certain animal already gave birth or not (regarding the Din of B'chor), he is also believed with regard to Tziyun Kevaros - which is a tree that, according to the testimony of the Kuti, marks a grave (as we will see shortly).

(c)Our Mishnah does not believe them however, regarding S'chachos, P'ra'os and Beis ha'P'ras (which will be explained later, and) which are only a Safek mi'de'Rabbanan. The principle that governs these rulings is that - their testimony is not believed on any issue on which they themselves are suspect.