Explanation #1 (Rashi): We learn from here to every touching, e.g. a Sheretz or Neveilah that touched a covered part of a Tahor person.

Question #1: If we learn from a Zav, that just like we require an exposed part of the Zav, we require an exposed part of the Tahor...

Also regarding Heset (moving) we should learn, and require that he move the Tahor in an exposed [place], just like we require an exposed part of the Zav.

Here we say that if the stick is in a fold of the Tahor, and the Zav moved him through it, he is Tamei!

Question #2: We say also that Beis ha'Setarim is Metamei through carrying.

Explanation #2: Rather, if a Zav, Sheretz or Neveilah touched a covered part of a Tahor, he is Tahor - we do not learn this from a Zav. Rather, we learn from the expression of "touching" written regarding all of these;

Also regarding a Tahor who touches a Zav, it is written "ha'Noge'a bi'Vesar ha'Zav", and the expression of touching connotes externally, that the Tahor touches the Tum'ah in an exposed place.

Support: It connotes like this in Kidushin (25a). Ula said "all agree that the tongue is considered exposed regarding a Sheretz. The Torah said "v'Chi Yiga", and [the tongue" can touch things.

Inference: He expounds the expression of touching written regarding a Sheretz. He does not bring the verse of "Yadav" written regarding a Zav.

Disclaimer: However, Rashi's text there says "Asher Yiga Bo", which is the verse written regarding a Zav.

Implied question: Why do we need to expound here from Yadav, and we do not learn from "Negi'a" written regarding a Zav?

Answer #1: That "Negi'a" refers to Heset. It does not connote exposure, like actual touching. Therefore, he expounds from Yadav that we require exposure of the Zav, both regarding Heset and touching, since it taught with an expression of touching;

Answer #2: We learn from "Negi'a" written here regarding Yadav to every touching, that it is external.

Explanation: He discusses even if it left without Hargashah (sensation), like is proven from below.

Question: If so, this connotes that if it is proper to be Mazri'a (fertilize), even though it does not shoot like an arrow;

In Nedarim (91a) and Yevamos (65a), it says that she knows whether or not his semen shoots like an arrow, but he does not. (If it does not, he is sterile.) This connotes that if it does not shoot like an arrow, it is not proper to be Mazri'a!

Answer #1: According to this version here, we require only that when the semen is initially uprooted, it is proper to be Mazri'a, even if at the end of its exit it is in a way that cannot be Mazri'a.

Answer #2: It is proper to be Mazri'a, but it is not proper to impregnate, since it does not shoot like an arrow and does not enter her body. Rather, it drips and goes outside.

Explanation: This is even if it was uprooted without Hargashah. If not, this is just like Version #1!

Explanation: He asked similarly [right after this] about a Nochris [who converted after the urine started to flow].

Question (Riva, to Rashi): Why don't we ask about a male Zav and Nochri [whose urine started to flow]?

Answer (Rashi): It seems that in a woman, all the urine gathers at once to the opening, but not in a man.

Explanation #1: He does not expound the word "Es".

Explanation #2: Alternatively, [he expounds "Es";] it comes for a different Drashah.

Implied question: Above (35a), we expound "mi'Besaro", and not due to Ones!

Answer: We learn both [Drashos] from this [word].

Question: Why do we need the verse to teach "until it leaves his flesh"? What would be the source to be Metamei internally like externally?

Suggestion: We learn from Nidah and Zavah.

Rejection: Above (32b), we require a verse to include a minor to become a Zav, and [another verse] for Nidah and Zavah, and we do not learn them from each other!

Answer: We would have learned from Nidah, Zavah and Poletes (a woman who emits semen), from a Tzad ha'Shavah;

Implied question: How can we answer according to R. Shimon [who says that Poletes is not Teme'ah her until it leaves her? He cannot make the Tzad ha'Shavah!]

Answer: We can say that since the verse revealed that Zav and Zavah are the same regarding minors, also [to be Metamei] internally like externally we would equate them, if not for "Besaro."

Question: Did he not know that he said only that a complete Ever [is Metamei]?!

Answer: He challenges the answer that any amount of semen was taught. We also find that any amount of Sheretz is Metamei, e.g. limbs!

He answers that this is not any amount, for if [the limb] is lacking, it is Tahor.

Implied question: Why can't we learn from "veha'Beged Asher Yihyeh Alav Shichvas Zera"? (Just like semen is Metamei garments through touching, it is Metamei people!)

Answer: A garment is more stringent than a person, like it says in Bava Basra (9a).

Question: Why do we expound [this from] "Oh Ish" written regarding a Sheretz, and we abandoned Oh Ish written regarding Shichvas Zera itself?

Answer: He holds that it is more reasonable to include touching from a verse about touching, and not from the verse about Shichvas Zera, which discusses Ro'eh (one who had an emission).

Question: Why do we need the extra words "Oh Ish"? We should know from the Hekesh of Shichvas Zera to a Sheretz!

For this reason (the Hekesh) we learn that fabric and hide [receive Tum'as] Sheretz, from Shichvas Zera, in Shabbos (64a) and Bava Kama (25b)!

Answer: If not for "Oh Ish", one might have thought that only the matters explicitly written are equated, e.g. touching a Sheretz and Ro'eh Shichvas Zera;

Implied question: [If so, according to] Rav Papa, who includes touching [semen] from Oh Ish of Sheretz, why does it say there that they are equated to each other?

Answer: This is because the verse of Sheretz [teaches about] Shichvas Zera, and we would not have established "Oh Ish" of Sheretz to discuss touching Shichvas Zera, if not that they were explicitly written adjacent to each other. (It is right after "Oh Ish" of Shichvas Zera.)

Explanation: Because it says regarding Nega'im "Ish Oh Ishah", and also regarding Tum'as Mes it says "v'Ish Asher Yitma v'Lo Yischata", we need a verse for them to include [minors].

Distinction: However, to obligate [his brother's widow] to do [Chalitzah or] Yibum, to exempt [his mother] from Yibum and to feed [his mother] Terumah, it is not written "Ish." We need a verse only to exclude a fetus.