Question: Our Mishnah (31b), which connotes that Benos Kusim are Nidos from birth, is unlike Rabanan. Rather, it is like R. Meir, who is concerned for the minority;

He holds that Kusim are Gerei Emes (proper converts). This is proven in Bava Kama 38b.

According to Rabanan, who are not concerned for the minority, they are not Nidos from birth.

Also, it is unlike R. Yosi. Even though he is concerned for the minority in Yevamos (67b), since he holds that Kusim are Gerei Arayos (they converted only due to fear of lions. Their conversion was invalid.)

This is proven in Menachos (66b). It says that we may be Torem (separate Terumah) from [Peros] of Kusim on those of Nochrim.

Consequence: If so, Tum'as Nidah does not apply to Kusim, like we say below "Tum'as Zivah applies to Benos Yisrael, but not to Nochrim."

Question: One of the 18 decrees [on the day that they voted, and Beis Shamai outnumbered Beis Hillel - Shabbos 13b] was that Benos Kusim are Nidos from birth;

In Shabbos (13b), it connotes that no one argues with the 18 decrees. It connotes there that all agree that this was one of the 18 decrees!

Answer: Even Rabanan, who are not concerned for the minority, and even if they are Gerei Arayos, Rabanan made them Nidos from birth and decreed Tum'ah on them;

This was due to Timu'a (lest Yisre'elim mingle) with them, just like they decreed about a Nochri's daughter.

Question: If so, why do we establish it like R. Meir, because he is concerned for the minority? We should establish it like everyone, due to Timu'a;

Also R. Meir is concerned for Timu'a, for it says in Bava Kama (38b) that R. Meir made a monetary fine, lest Yisre'elim mingle with them!

Answer: You are forced to say that our Mishnah is not concerned for Timu'a, only for concern of seeing blood, like it says "because they are Yoshev on all blood."

Implied question: Why did R. Yosi say that a case occurred in Ein Bul, in which [a baby became a Nidah within a week of birth, and] they immersed her before her mother? He holds that the decree was due to Timu'a!

Answer: [Even so,] he needed to bring a proof that it is common that small girls see [blood]. If not, it would be ludicrous to decree that they are Nidos.

Question: According to R. Meir, who is concerned for the minority and holds that Kusim are Gerei Emes, if so [we must be concerned lest] they are Nidos from birth mid'Oraisa. Why is this listed among the 18 decrees?

Answer: Presumably, she did not see immediately, the first moment after birth. If so, we leave her in her Chazakah that she did not see;

We join the majority who did not see to the Chazakah that she did not see. Those who see are a minority of a minority. (Even R. Meir is not concerned for such a small minority.) They are not Metamei mid'Oraisa. Mid'Rabanan they decreed on them, amidst the 18 decrees.

Question: According to R. Yosi, that they are Gerei Arayos, why did they decree that Kusim are Nidos from birth, and regarding a Nochri's daughter they decreed only from three years old, like we say there (Avodah Zarah 36a)?

Answer: They were stringent about Kusim, who fulfill some Mitzvos, and Yisre'elim do not evade them. They decreed [Nidah] on them from birth, lest Yisre'elim mingle with them;

However, Yisre'elim evaded Nochrim very much. They did not decree [Nidah] on them until Bi'ah applies to them.

Question: She should do Yibum in any case! If she is an Ailonis, the Kidushin of his brother who died] was mistaken [and invalid]!

Source (Yevamos 2b - Mishnah): If any of them (the 15 Arayos who are exempt from Chalitzah or Yibum, and exempt their Tzaros) was found to be an Ailonis, her Tzaros are permitted, because they are not Tzaras Ervah (the Ailonis was never married)!

Answer (R. Tam): Here we discuss when his brother accepted [to marry her even if she is an Ailonis].

Support: We answer like this in Sanhedrin (69b). This is not the place to elaborate more.

Question: Regarding a minor, why are we concerned lest he be found to be a Seris? We should check whether he makes an arch when he urinates or one of the other signs given in Yevamos (80b);

There is an opinion there that one is a Seris only if he has all of the Simanim! (If we check and find one Siman of being normal, there is no concern!)

Answer: Checking helps only when he is older (in adulthood).

Explanation: [They immersed her] because she saw blood.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps [the Tevilah] was because she touched her mother, who is Teme'ah Leidah!

Rejection: If so, what is the Chidush? Every baby is Tamei [due to this]!

Note: Also, if it were due to touching her mother, she will become Tamei again the next time she nurses! However, Tevilah would help if another [Tahor] woman nurses her.

Implied question: In Bechoros (27a), it says about Chalah [of Chutz la'Aretz, which is like Terumas Chutz la'Aretz] that we feed it to a minor Kohen [from whom Tum'ah never left his body, i.e. Keri. Our Gemara connotes that a Nidah may immerse, and then anoint with Terumah!]

Answer: The same applies to an adult who immersed [from Tum'ah that left his body], like it connotes here. (He may consume or anoint with Terumah.)

Question: In Chulin (120a), regarding Chelev, why must it say "Kol Nefesh" to include [liability] for one who drinks Chelev [if it is like eating]?

Answer: [The verse] teaches that [also] melted Chelev is called Chelev.

Question: Initially, we bring a [verse] from Torah, and afterwards we bring an Asmachta!

In Shabbos (86a), a Mishnah says that anointing on Yom Kipur is forbidden. Even though there is no proof, there is a hint - "va'Tavo cha'Mayim b'Kirbo."

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Also the verse "Lo Yechalelu" is an Asmachta, for in Sanhedrin (83a) we expound from it that one is liable Misah [b'Yedei Shamayim] for [eating] Tevel;

In Zevachim (3b), we expound it for another Drashah. Mid'Oraisa, anointing is not like drinking, and the same applies to Yom Kipur.

Proof #1: One is Chayav Kares only for eating and drinking;

Proof #2: It was taught in Yoma (77b) that one who has lesions on his head may anoint normally without concern.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): Chachamim gave an Asmachta only for anointing oil, and it is forbidden mid'Rabanan. However, one may anoint with pig lard or Chelev.

Support: In Pesachim (24b), it says that one who puts Chelev of Shor ha'Niskal (an ox sentenced to be stoned) on a wound is exempt, but it is forbidden, because it is Asur b'Hana'ah;

Inference: One may do so with regular Chelev. There is no Isur.

Explanation: If the text says "it is a tradition", this is fine. Only one of them is a tradition;

However, in most texts it says "they are a tradition", because Rava did not explain which is [learned from] a verse, and which is a tradition, i.e. one of the verses [is a tradition];

We need not explain [that it says "they are"], because it refers also to the verse "Zecharim" below.

Support: In Sukah (28a), regarding "Ezrach" to exclude women [from Sukah] it says "they are a tradition", even though there is only one.

Explanation: The verse "v'Ishah" of Zavah comes for a different Drashah.

Implied question: What is the source for Mayanos (bodily fluids) of a Metzora or Metzora'as?

Answer: We must say that we learn from another verse.

Implied suggestion: Perhaps this verse discusses both of them!

Rejection: Below (35a), Abaye says 'since R. Yosef said "Zos Toras ha'Zav" - whether he is an adult or minor", "la'Zachar" is extra to include Mayanos.

Implied question: We always expound "Vov" to include. Why do we expound it here to exclude?

Answer (Rashi): Since we do not need it to include, we expound that it is extra to teach that this applies only to a man, but not to a woman;

Similarly, regarding a woman, [we expound that it is extra to teach that] this applies only to a woman, but not to a man.

Question (Rivan): Why do we need to exclude a woman from white (Tum'as Keri)? Above (19a) we exclude from "Dameha" that only four colors of blood are Tamei in a woman, and no more! (White is not one of them.)

Answer (Rivan): In any case, one might have thought that we learn from a Kal va'Chomer from a man. He is not Tamei due to red, but he is Tamei due to white. A woman is Tamei due to red, all the more so she should be Tamei due to white!

Implied question: We can challenge this. A man is Tamei [for seven days] through sightings (even if he saw Zov twice in one day) like through days (as if he saw on consecutive days. A woman becomes Tamei for seven days only through seeing blood on three consecutive days!)

Answer: (Indeed, it is not a proper Kal va'Chomer. The Hava Amina to learn from a man to a woman) is a mere Giluy Milsa (reveals that the Tum'ah taught about a man applies to a woman. Therefore, we need a verse to teach unlike this.)

Question #1: The Rashbam explained below (54b) that a Zav is equated to a Nidah, since it says "veha'Davah b'Nidasah..." to be Metamei a person to be Metamei Begadim if he carried his (a Zav's) Mishkav! (Our Gemara says that we cannot learn a Zav from a Zavah. Nidah and Zavah are the same regarding Mishkav and Moshav.)

Question #2: He explained similarly below regarding a Kli Cheres, which he is Metamei through Heset.

Question #3: It connotes like this also below (41b). We need a verse regarding a Nidah that she becomes Tamei internally (once blood leaves her Makor) like externally (as if it left her body), since it says "bi'Vsarah";

Regarding a Zav we need a verse that he does not become Tamei internally - "Ki Yihyeh Zav mi'Besaro" connotes that it left his flesh;

Inference: We need a verse so we will not learn from Nidah! (Aruch l'Ner - since we already know that a Zav is Tamei, it is a mere Giluy Milsa to equate his Tum'ah to a Zavah. This is like Tosfos concluded in the previous Dibur. However, a Giluy Milsa does not help to teach that a minor becomes Tamei.)

Version #1 (Rashi's text) Question: It says "v'Chol ha'Noge'a b'Chol Asher Yihyeh Sachtav Yitma" - what does Tachtav mean?

It cannot mean "under the Zav", for we know that from "Asher Yiga b'Mishkavo"!

Answer: Rather, it means whatever the Zav is under.

Version #2: It was written in Seforim "[veha'Nosei Nami Yitma]. What is this? It is Nisa (what the Zav carries)." What is the reason [to expound like this]? It is written [without a Vov,] veha'Nasa [which we can read veha'Nisa, what is carried].

Rejection #1: Rashi rejected this, for we already learned this from Tachtav!

Rejection #2: Also, after "veha'Nosei", washing clothes is written!

Retraction: Rashi retracted from this (his) text, for how can we establish the verse to discuss Elyono Shel Zav? Toras Kohanim explicitly establishes it to discuss Merkav (a Kli used for riding)!

Also, how did we want to establish it to discuss Mishkav? Regarding Mishkav it says that he washes his clothes for touching it, and here washing clothes is not written!

We ask like this above (9a) regarding one who sprinkles Mei Nidah (water on which ashes of the Parah Adumah were put).

Also, how can we establish the verse to discuss Elyono Shel Zav, which is Metamei only food and drink? A Mikveh is not Metaher them, yet the verse says "Yitma Ad ha'Arev"!

Assertion: It seems that Rashi's text did not say "what does Tachtav mean? If it means...";

Rather, his text said "v'Chol ha'Noge'a b'Chol Asher Yihyeh Sachtav Yitma Ad ha'Arev", and also ha'Nosei becomes Tamei. What is this (ha'Nosei)? It is Nisa (what he carries).

Citation (Rashi's text, cont.): What is the reason? It is written veha'Nasa - the Torah uprooted it from [severe] Tum'ah...

Explanation: It means as follows. "Veha'Noge'a b'Chol Asher Yihyeh Sachtav" discusses Merkav, like Toras Kohanim establishes it. This verse is written after Merkav, and it distinguishes between touching and carrying it;

[A Zav's Merkav] is Metamei a person who touched it, but not [to make him be Metamei his] Kelim, for washing clothes is not written here;

[His Merkav] is Metamei a person who carries it, and he is Metamei his clothes, like the verse concludes "veha'Nosei Osam Yechaves Begadav." This refers to everything written in this matter [of Zav] - his Mayanos (bodily fluids), his Merkav, and his Moshav;

Explanation (cont.): We expound Elyono Shel Zav since it is written "veha'Nosei" lacking a Vov. It refers to the Reisha (the previous verse of Merkav), which says "Yitma", but does not mention washing clothes.

It means as follows. One who touches the Merkav of a Zav becomes Tamei, and similarly what is carried. This is Elyono Shel Zav;

The Torah uprooted it from the Tum'ah [written] afterwards ("Yechaves Begadav").

Assertion: You are forced to say that "veha'Nisa" refers to the Reisha (Merkav), and not to the Seifa.

Proof: It says "Osam". Regarding Nisa (which is passive), Osam (them, a direct object) does not apply! Rather, Osam refers to how we pronounce it "Nosei" (one who carries his Merkav), and the tradition (it is written without a Vov, an allusion to Elyono Shel Zav) refers to the Reisha (the previous verse).

Explanation (cont.): We ask that we should say that it was uprooted from severe Tum'ah to be Metamei a person to be Metamei his garments, but a person or garment becomes Tamei from it, just like from a Merkav;

We answer that "Yitma" connotes light Tum'ah. Ha'Nosei is [written] next to something that touches a Merkav, and a garment that touches a Merkav is Metamei only food and drink.

Defense: We can defend the first text. We expound Tachtav. Even though the verse discusses Merkav, in any case "Tachtav" does not refer to Merkav, rather, what is under him;

Citation (Toras Kohanim, brought in Eruvin 27a): A saddle is Tamei Moshav, and the Tefus (a protrusion that sticks up) has Tum'as Merkav.

Inference: What is under him is not called Merkav, rather, Moshav. Therefore, we ask what Tachtav refers to. If it is Mishkav, we know this from "Asher Yiga..."!

Implied question: We could have asked that washing clothes is written regarding Mishkav, and here it is not written!

Answer #1: The Gemara asked better than this.

Answer #2: The reason why washing clothes is not written is because the verse primarily discusses Merkav, which does not obligate washing clothes [for one who only touched it, which this first part of the verse discusses].

We explain that rather, the Zav is under it. I.e. it is Elyono Shel Zav, which is Metamei only food and drink;

The verse mentions Tum'as Erev due to Merkav. Merkav is Metamei people or garments.

Explanation: The text properly says "what is the reason? It is written veha'Nasa." (I.e. veha'Nosei is written lacking a Vov, so we can read it veha'Nisa.) From Tachtav alone we would not establish it to discuss Elyono Shel Zav, for we would not invent a new Tum'ah without a source. Rather, we would establish it to discuss a Merkav;

Had it not said also Tachtav, from "Nosei" we would not establish it to discuss light Tum'ah of food and drink regarding Nisa, since washing clothes is written regarding it;

One might have thought that it (Merkav) was uprooted [from being Metamei people to be Metamei their garments] to be Metamei [only] people or garments. Tachtav teaches that rather, it discusses Elyono Shel Zav.

It (Elyono Shel Zav) was written regarding Merkav, which does not have (obligate) washing clothes (for touching it), and "Yitma" is written regarding it, which connotes light Tum'ah.

Support: You are forced to say that the text says "it is written veha'Nasa". If we expounded Elyono Shel Zav only from Tachtav, how do we ask "perhaps it was uprooted from severe Tum'ah?"

Where is severe Tum'ah written regarding it, that we say that it was uprooted?!