Implied question: Shmuel taught below (43a) that any semen that his entire body does not feel is not Metamei! (They should be permitted if they did not feel!)

Answer: Here, perhaps his entire body felt, and he did not put to his mind [that he is Tamei].

Question: We say in Kidushin (82a) that most camel-drivers and Kosher, and most donkey-drivers are bandits!

Answer: Here we discuss riders, and due to Hirhur. There, we do not discuss riders, rather, people who put merchandise on camels and they walk by foot, far (from settled areas), in dangerous areas (so they humble their hearts to Hash-m);

Donkey-drivers are bandits, for when they buy, they do deception in business.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The face is on top.

Support: Bava Basra 74a connotes like this. It says those who died in the Midbar were sleeping Aparkid, and a Yishmaeli merchant passed under their knees with a spear in his hand. The word "Aparkid" is from "a'Poryei Kadal (the back of his neck is on his bed)."

Explanation #2: This is unlike the Aruch, who explained that the face is below. The word "Aparkid" is from "Apuy Kid."

Note: I.e. his face is to the ground. It seems that "Kid" is like Kidah, which is prostrating one's face to the ground (Brachos 34b).

Question: Also (another support for Explanation #1) is that according to Explanation #2, why there is a "Reish" in Aparkid?!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [When one sleeps Aparkid,] his hands rest on his Ever, and it is warmed.

Explanation #2 (Rashbam): His garments fall on his Ever, and it is warmed.

Explanation #3 (Rashi): Sometimes he has an erection, and it is revealed [and this is disgraceful].

Rejection: In a closed or dark house, how can we answer [why it is forbidden]?

Note: Seemingly, one could say that Rashi gives an additional reason that applies only sometimes. However, if so Rashi should have brought his other Perush first!

Explanation: This is when he is slightly Aparkid. However, totally on his side is permitted;

Source: It says in Brachos (24a) that if two were sleeping [without clothes, under one blanket], each turns his face away from the other and reads Kri'as Shma.

Explanation #1: We do not ask about Bedikos, that we say that she is Temei'ah if she found blood, for perhaps this is a stringency;

However, here we ask why they are obligated to bring a Korban. Perhaps they bring Chulin b'Azarah!

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): We ask about the case when blood was found on his [Ed]. When blood was found on hers, why do we say that they are Temei'im, since there is a proof that it is not from her?

Suggestion: [Dachuk] means that [a louse] can enter only with difficulty, and sometimes it enters.

Rejection: If so, it should have said below, in the version that it is because it is Dachuk, "I can say that it happened [to enter]"! Why must we mention that the Ever crushed it?

Explanation: "Checked" means that it does not come close to the womb at all, due to the filth, so that the Ever could bring it in [to the womb. I.e. a louse stays far away, therefore the Ever cannot bring it in];

"It is Dachuk for a louse" means that it never enters by itself, only sometimes it comes so close to the womb that the Ever brings it in and crushes it.

Explanation: [She slapped it on her thigh] in a place where blood from the Makor cannot fall.

Version #1 (Rashi's text): [She found] on her thigh. It says that she is Temei'ah Nidah, for we can say that her thigh became dirty [with blood] from the Ed, and not from elsewhere.

Question: She should check the Ed!

Answer #1: The Ed was lost.

Answer #2: Perhaps the blood on the Ed itself came from her thigh, since it was found on the Ed only in a place where it touched her thigh.

Explanation: The case is, there is more than a Gris, so there is no concern lest it is from a louse.

Limitation: This is only regarding a checked Ed. If it was not checked, it is a Sefek-Sefeka (perhaps the blood was on it beforehand, and even if it came now, perhaps it is from elsewhere), like Rashi explained.

Limitation: This is only if she slapped it on her thigh. If she put it in a box, obviously she is Temei'ah!

Version #2: R. Chananel's text says "she found on it", i.e. on the Ed. She slapped it on her thigh, i.e. in an exposed place. She did not put it in a box, for if she put it in a box, obviously she is Temei'ah!

He asks "you said to us 'we are concerned', for I can say that it came from elsewhere!"

Explanation: Even R. Chiya, who is Metaher below, agrees here.

Source: R. Chiya holds like R. Yosi, and Shmuel himself rules like R. Yosi below (59b), and here he says that she is Temei'ah Nidah.

Explanation: She knew that it was clean a day or two ago, and now, at the time of Bedikah, she took it from a hidden place, and she did not check the Ed.

Suggestion: Perhaps it was never checked!

Rejection: In such a case, Rebbi would not consider her Vadai Tamei.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Presumably, R. Chiya said this when he was old,] since he argues with Rebbi.

Rebuttal: We find many Talmidim who argued with their Rebbeyim when they were young!

Explanation #2 (Rashbam): R. Chiya initially learned in Bavel, and when he was old, he ascended [to Eretz Yisrael] and learned in front of Rebbi;

Source (Sukah 20a): [Torah] was forgotten again. R. Chiya and his sons ascended and established it.

Explanation #3: Since R. Chiya said "even you treat it like a Kesem", and he did not say "even you, Rebbi", this teaches that in his old age he was a Talmid Chaver;

Source: It says in Bava Basra (158b) that Ben Azai was a Talmid Chaver of R. Akiva, for he said to him "you come", and he did not say "Mar (a title of respect) comes."

Inference: R. Yosi was the Rebbi of Rebbi.

Question: It says in Sanhedrin (24a) "how much [Chachamim] endear each other! If R. Yosi was alive, he would have been submissive and learned in front of Rebbi, and [when Rebbi heard that R. Yosi held unlike him,] he said "the elder already ruled!"

Explanation (Rashi): He would have been submissive due to the honor of Rebbi being the Nasi.

Rejection (of inference): If so (R. Yosi was his Rebbi), how is it proven that they endear each other? (Surely Rebbi needed to rule like R. Yosi.) Because [Rebbi] was the Nasi, should he not rule like his Rebbi?!

Explanation (R. Tam): In Rebbi's youth, R. Yosi was greater. In Rebbi's old age, due to the Talmidim, Rebbi became a greater Chacham.

Support: It says here that since Rabanan were frequent in front of Rebbi, his teachings are sharp.

Explanation #1: It seems that he is totally Metaher, for it says "he was Metaher for himself (like he taught elsewhere)", like regarding a woman who urinated. There, it seems that he is totally Metaher;

Suggestion: Perhaps "he was Metaher for himself" means that since regarding a woman who urinated, he is totally Metaher, here regarding an unchecked Ed, at least he is Metaher from Nidah, and makes her like one who saw a Kesem.

Rejection: If so, what was the question below "R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina said that R. Meir was Metamei only [like for a Kesem]?" This is not difficult. It is proper to be more stringent about an unchecked Ed than about a woman who urinates!

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): R. Yosi is not Metaher totally regarding a woman who urinates, and like the conclusion, that R. Meir [is Metamei] due to Nidah.

Consequence: According to this, the Mishnah (below, 59b), which says that if a man and a woman both urinated into a basin, and blood was found, R. Yosi is Metaher...

The Gemara asks why we need this clause, and answers that if from the Reisha, one might have thought [that he is Metaher] b'Di'eved (if she already touched Taharos). The Seifa teaches that even l'Chatchilah [she may touch];

According to R. Chananel, "even l'Chatchilah" does not apply to the Reisha (she may not touch Taharos, for she is Safek Tamei). Rather, it applies only to the Seifa.

Question: In Kerisus (17b), it asks against R. Chiya bar Rav, who requires a piece among two pieces (one brings Asham Taluy only if we know that there was as Isur Kares here, and the Safek is whether he ate [or had relations with] it or the Heter) from the Beraisa here;

It answers that the Beraisa is R. Eliezer, who obligates Asham Taluy for Chelev [of a Kvi, i.e. a Safek Behemah, even though there is only one piece].

Rather than asking from a Beraisa, we should have supported him from our Mishnah, which exempts from a Korban!

Answer: Perhaps our Mishnah exempts only from a Chatas, and it does not argue with the Beraisa.

Implied question: Why does it say that our Tana [does not require a piece among two pieces? Perhaps he exempts only from a Chatas!]

Answer: It means that if you will say our Mishnah exempts even from Asham Taluy, this is because [our Tana] requires a piece among two pieces.

Question: Since he taught in order to stretch her hand and take an Ed [from] under the pillow, that [in such a case, if she found blood,] her husband is Tamei seven days (Bo'el Nidah), and he is obligated Asham Taluy...

Automatically, we know that if she delayed longer until she descends from the bed, this is after after, and she is not Metamei her husband seven days [according to Rabanan! See the Rashba, who says that Rav Chisda does not mean that our Mishnah is missing words. Rather, it taught only the delay after which Rabanan argue, and are Metaher him. If she checked before this, Rabanan agree that he is Tamei.]